Children are born believers in God, academic claims

[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?

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.

What is fascinating about it from a believer's standpoint is this: Christians claim (and scripture supports the claim) that because we are made in the image of God and because we are made by God to worship him and to live a certain type of life, that we are therefore happiest and most successful when we do worship God and lead godly lives.

A claim that has always been sneered at by atheists as *unscientific*...while they have maintained that atheism is the *natural* state of man....

These studies prove that atheism is NOT the natural state of man, and that in fact man is genetically predisposed to seek out a supernatural creator.

And THAT, in turn, supports what I have always maintained...that the further we delve into mathematics and genetics, the closer we will come to God, and the more obvious it will be that we WERE created, and for a specific function.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I would counter that it might well be claimed that is what Atheism is, but that is not my experience of Atheists. I have seen all kinds of assertions from Atheists regarding the existence of gods. Your own post was almost entirely unsupporrted assertions. In my opinion, if a definition is inconsistent with reality, it is the definition which is wrong - not reality.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

What is fascinating about it from a believer's standpoint is this: Christians claim (and scripture supports the claim) that because we are made in the image of God and because we are made by God to worship him and to live a certain type of life, that we are therefore happiest and most successful when we do worship God and lead godly lives.

A claim that has always been sneered at by atheists as *unscientific*...while they have maintained that atheism is the *natural* state of man....

These studies prove that atheism is NOT the natural state of man, and that in fact man is genetically predisposed to seek out a supernatural creator.

And THAT, in turn, supports what I have always maintained...that the further we delve into mathematics and genetics, the closer we will come to God, and the more obvious it will be that we WERE created, and for a specific function.

It is not surprising that Christian scripture would tend to support Christian belief. It is, however, quite true that that belief is utterly unscientific. To see it any other way is to completely miss the point of science. Science does not address the question of god at all. So any conception of god is unscientific.

As to we being made in the image of God, that is easily reversed. If we are to create a concept of God, it is perfectly logical that this concept would be in a familiar image - our own. The fact that we have such beliefs are only evidence that we have such beliefs. It says absolutely nothing about the nature of such a being.

For example, what possible use is hair on a being which is not affected by weather? What use is maleness in a being which has no need of sex? What good do arms and legs do to a being capable of being everywhere at once and manipulating by force of will? Our physical body makes perfect sense in the environment in which we evolved, but it makes no sense at all in the context of the Christian concept of God.

Other than it is in keeping with a particular set of beliefs, the idea that such a being would look like us makes no sense at all.

 

[yidnar]

Are born believing in Santa, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy too?

Seriously - to a child, god, santa, whatever, its all the same. They don't learn that its all a pile of silly fantasies until later. And, when they do learn that, its the result of a shit load of guilt being piled on by such intellectual giants as their Aunt Martha.

On this one (and ONLY on this one), I agree with TNharley.

there is a God .we may not understand much about this being but something greater than us ,to vast for human understanding exist .
Did Einstein believe in God

 

[koshergrl]

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.

What is fascinating about it from a believer's standpoint is this: Christians claim (and scripture supports the claim) that because we are made in the image of God and because we are made by God to worship him and to live a certain type of life, that we are therefore happiest and most successful when we do worship God and lead godly lives.

A claim that has always been sneered at by atheists as *unscientific*...while they have maintained that atheism is the *natural* state of man....

These studies prove that atheism is NOT the natural state of man, and that in fact man is genetically predisposed to seek out a supernatural creator.

And THAT, in turn, supports what I have always maintained...that the further we delve into mathematics and genetics, the closer we will come to God, and the more obvious it will be that we WERE created, and for a specific function.

It is not surprising that Christian scripture would tend to support Christian belief. It is, however, quite true that that belief is utterly unscientific. To see it any other way is to completely miss the point of science. Science does not address the question of god at all. So any conception of god is unscientific.

As to we being made in the image of God, that is easily reversed. If we are to create a concept of God, it is perfectly logical that this concept would be in a familiar image - our own. The fact that we have such beliefs are only evidence that we have such beliefs. It says absolutely nothing about the nature of such a being.

For example, what possible use is hair on a being which is not affected by weather? What use is maleness in a being which has no need of sex? What good do arms and legs do to a being capable of being everywhere at once and manipulating by force of will? Our physical body makes perfect sense in the environment in which we evolved, but it makes no sense at all in the context of the Christian concept of God.

Other than it is in keeping with a particular set of beliefs, the idea that such a being would look like us makes no sense at all.

According to the studies, belief is not unscientific at all. It is something we are genetically coded to have. And our physical bodies do make perfect sense in the context of the Christian concept of God...particularly when you remember that prior to the fall, men did not die, and women did not give birth.

 

[Underhill]

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.

What is fascinating about it from a believer's standpoint is this: Christians claim (and scripture supports the claim) that because we are made in the image of God and because we are made by God to worship him and to live a certain type of life, that we are therefore happiest and most successful when we do worship God and lead godly lives.

A claim that has always been sneered at by atheists as *unscientific*...while they have maintained that atheism is the *natural* state of man....

Nope sorry.

I don't sneer at the notion that leading a good life is a recipe for happiness. I sneer at the notion that leading a good life has anything to do with god.

I am a good person, not because of god, but because it makes sense to be good. My life is better, as is the life of those around me. It's absurd to think that the golden rule is anything but logical.

These studies prove that atheism is NOT the natural state of man, and that in fact man is genetically predisposed to seek out a supernatural creator.

They prove no such thing. In fact the people who ran the study do not make such a claim.

And THAT, in turn, supports what I have always maintained...that the further we delve into mathematics and genetics, the closer we will come to God, and the more obvious it will be that we WERE created, and for a specific function.

We shall see. But so far, it isn't looking good for your hypothesis.

 

[PratchettFan]

What is fascinating about it from a believer's standpoint is this: Christians claim (and scripture supports the claim) that because we are made in the image of God and because we are made by God to worship him and to live a certain type of life, that we are therefore happiest and most successful when we do worship God and lead godly lives.

A claim that has always been sneered at by atheists as *unscientific*...while they have maintained that atheism is the *natural* state of man....

These studies prove that atheism is NOT the natural state of man, and that in fact man is genetically predisposed to seek out a supernatural creator.

And THAT, in turn, supports what I have always maintained...that the further we delve into mathematics and genetics, the closer we will come to God, and the more obvious it will be that we WERE created, and for a specific function.

It is not surprising that Christian scripture would tend to support Christian belief. It is, however, quite true that that belief is utterly unscientific. To see it any other way is to completely miss the point of science. Science does not address the question of god at all. So any conception of god is unscientific.

As to we being made in the image of God, that is easily reversed. If we are to create a concept of God, it is perfectly logical that this concept would be in a familiar image - our own. The fact that we have such beliefs are only evidence that we have such beliefs. It says absolutely nothing about the nature of such a being.

For example, what possible use is hair on a being which is not affected by weather? What use is maleness in a being which has no need of sex? What good do arms and legs do to a being capable of being everywhere at once and manipulating by force of will? Our physical body makes perfect sense in the environment in which we evolved, but it makes no sense at all in the context of the Christian concept of God.

Other than it is in keeping with a particular set of beliefs, the idea that such a being would look like us makes no sense at all.

According to the studies, belief is not unscientific at all. It is something we are genetically coded to have. And our physical bodies do make perfect sense in the context of the Christian concept of God...particularly when you remember that prior to the fall, men did not die, and women did not give birth.

Again, I think you fail to understand what science is. We are genetically coded to urninate, but that does not mean you are engaged in science when you pee. Science is a set of rules we use for a structured investigation of our universe. If you are not using those rules, you are not using science. Belief in gods does not use those rules because there are no relevant facts on which to use them. That does not make the beliefs wrong, but it does make them unscientific.

I will not argue what does or does not makes sense within the context of your belief. I am certain what makes sense to me in the context of my belief would not make sense to you. However, taking it out of those contexts, the only purpose for two sexes is reproduction. If there is no reproduction, male and female is pointless and nonsensical.

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't say leading a good life leads to happiness, and that certainly isn't what Hamer said. What he said is that the God gene compels humans to interact in a way that creates a more functional society, and thus brings happiness to the participants of that society.

And whether or not you acknowledge it or even understand it, goodness does not exist separate from God. When you are good, it is because you are obeying God.

Yes, the studies do certainly prove that atheism is not the natural state of man, and various and assorted researchers that I have linked have said precisely that...including the #1 genetecist in the world. If you want to maintain that you have better, different information that can negate these studies, by all means...provide it. Pssst..."I think" and "I feel" are not sufficient.

 

[Underhill]

"Tania Lombrozo, Professor of Psychology at the Concepts and Cognition lab at Berkeley, has done similar experiments to those described by Barrett, but in Alzheimer's patients rather than young kids. And it turns out that, just like kids, Alzheimer's patients tend to see design everywhere. This is an excerpt from an article on her work in Berkeley Science Review:

Unlike children, most educated adults know that clouds form because water condenses, and that mountains exist because of plate tectonics. However, Lombrozo was interested in whether adults would fall back on teleological reasoning in the absence of background knowledge. To address this question, she and her colleagues Deborah Kelemen and Deborah Zaitchik examined a group of adults whose background beliefs were compromised, but who had otherwise developed normally: Alzheimer's patients.
"Alzheimer's patients have some characteristics of adults and some characteristics of children," says Lombrozo. "Like adults, they have undergone normal development and have presumably gotten rid of any reasoning strategies associated only with children. But like pre-school children, they might not have access to the kinds of rich causal beliefs that adults typically have access to."
In her study, subjects were asked to identify the most appropriate answers to a series of "why" questions. For example, for the question "Why does the earth have trees?" they could choose between "because they grow from tree seeds," or "so that animals can have shade." Lombrozo found that like young children, Alzheimer's patients were much more likely than age-matched control subjects to prefer teleological explanations, picking the teleological choice about twice as often as their healthy counterparts.

So kids are like adults but with an important bit of their brain missing. And that's why they 'get god right'! "

Epiphenom: The childish beliefs of Dr Justin Barrett

 

[koshergrl]

It is not surprising that Christian scripture would tend to support Christian belief. It is, however, quite true that that belief is utterly unscientific. To see it any other way is to completely miss the point of science. Science does not address the question of god at all. So any conception of god is unscientific.

As to we being made in the image of God, that is easily reversed. If we are to create a concept of God, it is perfectly logical that this concept would be in a familiar image - our own. The fact that we have such beliefs are only evidence that we have such beliefs. It says absolutely nothing about the nature of such a being.

For example, what possible use is hair on a being which is not affected by weather? What use is maleness in a being which has no need of sex? What good do arms and legs do to a being capable of being everywhere at once and manipulating by force of will? Our physical body makes perfect sense in the environment in which we evolved, but it makes no sense at all in the context of the Christian concept of God.

Other than it is in keeping with a particular set of beliefs, the idea that such a being would look like us makes no sense at all.

According to the studies, belief is not unscientific at all. It is something we are genetically coded to have. And our physical bodies do make perfect sense in the context of the Christian concept of God...particularly when you remember that prior to the fall, men did not die, and women did not give birth.

Again, I think you fail to understand what science is. We are genetically coded to urninate, but that does not mean you are engaged in science when you pee. Science is a set of rules we use for a structured investigation of our universe. If you are not using those rules, you are not using science. Belief in gods does not use those rules because there are no relevant facts on which to use them. That does not make the beliefs wrong, but it does make them unscientific.

I will not argue what does or does not makes sense within the context of your belief. I am certain what makes sense to me in the context of my belief would not make sense to you. However, taking it out of those contexts, the only purpose for two sexes is reproduction. If there is no reproduction, male and female is pointless and nonsensical.

I never said we are engaged in science when we attend church or anything even remotely like that, and I do know what science is. As does Hamer, the #1 genetecist in the WORLD, who maintains there is a God gene, and it compels humans to seek out supernatural explanations for the natural world.

BTW, male and female may be pointless and nonsensical to you, if there is no reproduction...but that is based on your limited understanding of relationships and in fact, the world.

 

[PratchettFan]

According to the studies, belief is not unscientific at all. It is something we are genetically coded to have. And our physical bodies do make perfect sense in the context of the Christian concept of God...particularly when you remember that prior to the fall, men did not die, and women did not give birth.

Again, I think you fail to understand what science is. We are genetically coded to urninate, but that does not mean you are engaged in science when you pee. Science is a set of rules we use for a structured investigation of our universe. If you are not using those rules, you are not using science. Belief in gods does not use those rules because there are no relevant facts on which to use them. That does not make the beliefs wrong, but it does make them unscientific.

I will not argue what does or does not makes sense within the context of your belief. I am certain what makes sense to me in the context of my belief would not make sense to you. However, taking it out of those contexts, the only purpose for two sexes is reproduction. If there is no reproduction, male and female is pointless and nonsensical.

I never said we are engaged in science when we attend church or anything even remotely like that, and I do know what science is. As does Hamer, the #1 genetecist in the WORLD, who maintains there is a God gene, and it compels humans to seek out supernatural explanations for the natural world.

BTW, male and female may be pointless and nonsensical to you, if there is no reproduction...but that is based on your limited understanding of relationships and in fact, the world.

I was not aware geneticists rated themselves. However, you are taking a study and reading into it that which is not there. Which is also unscientific. I do not quibble that human beings tend to create answers when they don't have them readily at hand. Thus, the sun going across the sky is actually the god Apollo in his chariot. Lightning is Odin throwing bolts at people he doesn't like. It is clear that human beings have always made up answers in order to avoid that more horrible of statements... "I don't know". if you wish to insist that your made up answers are the right answers and other people's made up answers are wrong, you are free to do so.

As to your comment about my limited understanding of relationships and the world.... you don't know me. You are simply putting me in a convenient box. That too is unscientific.

 

[koshergrl]

*yawn*...

I'm not reading anything into except that which the researchers themselves stated.

Again, I re-iterate. My interest in the studies is that it puts the lie to the atheist claim that children only seek God because they are indoctrinated to do so.

My point has been proven. Whatever point YOU have, feel free to make it. So far, you haven't.

 

[PratchettFan]

*yawn*...

I'm not reading anything into except that which the researchers themselves stated.

Again, I re-iterate. My interest in the studies is that it puts the lie to the atheist claim that children only seek God because they are indoctrinated to do so.

My point has been proven. Whatever point YOU have, feel free to make it. So far, you haven't.

That you think your point has been proven only goes to show that you still don't understand science.

 

[Underhill]

I didn't say leading a good life leads to happiness, and that certainly isn't what Hamer said. What he said is that the God gene compels humans to interact in a way that creates a more functional society, and thus brings happiness to the participants of that society.

He might say that, but that is not what his study proves.

And whether or not you acknowledge it or even understand it, goodness does not exist separate from God. When you are good, it is because you are obeying God.

Convenient claim but completely unsubstantiated by anything but an old book.

Yes, the studies do certainly prove that atheism is not the natural state of man, and various and assorted researchers that I have linked have said precisely that...including the #1 genetecist in the world. If you want to maintain that you have better, different information that can negate these studies, by all means...provide it. Pssst..."I think" and "I feel" are not sufficient.

#1 geneticist in the world? This is the kind of thing that makes people in the community cringe. He may be a prominent geneticist. But there is no international ranking, nor should there be. There are tens of thousands of geneticist who disagree with him. Some whom he works with.

Science is a accumulation of knowledge. You are picking and choosing what to believe from among a vast pool. You ignore the mountains of data from tens of thousands of scientist and zoom in on this one, or a few dozen. It's an absurd approach.

I cannot prove there is no god.

But I can easily prove the world is hundreds of millions of years old. I can easily prove the universe is much older than that. I can prove that micro evolution has happened and we can see millions of data points that virtually all point to macro evolution as a valid theory (and among many scientific circles it's considered law).

You can show a psychological study that may show children with undeveloped brains have a propensity to gullibility, an idea that is no surprise to anyone who has children. You have an old book that tells a bunch of unbelievable stories and gives some decent advise, along with some pretty horrific atrocities. You attempt repeatedly to fit the science to the book, but it's a tough row to hoe since the book is literally wrong on so many things.

I have no problem with your beliefs. Where I take issue is the absurd claims that it isn't a matter of belief. Your claims that the science and the facts back up said belief go against, not just most science, but what the bible says about faith itself.

The bible says "Faith is the evidence". Not that faith fills in the gaps. Not that faith is what you use until we figure it out, but that faith is the evidence.

But if that faith alone isn't good enough for you, that is between you and your god. Your post certainly make you sound insecure in your beliefs. I choose to base my convictions, my lifestyle and my post on the evidence and nothing more. And if by some miracle there is a god, I'll take my chances. I'm certainly not insecure in my convictions.

 

[koshergrl]

Again, I think you fail to understand what science is. We are genetically coded to urninate, but that does not mean you are engaged in science when you pee. Science is a set of rules we use for a structured investigation of our universe. If you are not using those rules, you are not using science. Belief in gods does not use those rules because there are no relevant facts on which to use them. That does not make the beliefs wrong, but it does make them unscientific.

I will not argue what does or does not makes sense within the context of your belief. I am certain what makes sense to me in the context of my belief would not make sense to you. However, taking it out of those contexts, the only purpose for two sexes is reproduction. If there is no reproduction, male and female is pointless and nonsensical.

I never said we are engaged in science when we attend church or anything even remotely like that, and I do know what science is. As does Hamer, the #1 genetecist in the WORLD, who maintains there is a God gene, and it compels humans to seek out supernatural explanations for the natural world.

BTW, male and female may be pointless and nonsensical to you, if there is no reproduction...but that is based on your limited understanding of relationships and in fact, the world.

I was not aware geneticists rated themselves. However, you are taking a study and reading into it that which is not there. Which is also unscientific. I do not quibble that human beings tend to create answers when they don't have them readily at hand. Thus, the sun going across the sky is actually the god Apollo in his chariot. Lightning is Odin throwing bolts at people he doesn't like. It is clear that human beings have always made up answers in order to avoid that more horrible of statements... "I don't know". if you wish to insist that your made up answers are the right answers and other people's made up answers are wrong, you are free to do so.

As to your comment about my limited understanding of relationships and the world.... you don't know me. You are simply putting me in a convenient box. That too is unscientific.

I've no doubt that what you aren't aware of could fill a tome...

But I was confusing Hamer with Collins....it does get confusing because so many of the ground-breakers in genetic research DO believe in God, they're easy to mix up.

"Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institute of Health, gave a lecture Friday evening on “God and the Genome,” reconciling the Bible’s creation story with evolution and sharing how science should actually bolster a person’s faith instead of dismantling it."

Read more at Nation's Top Christian Geneticist Defends God and Evolution "

Hamer is just " an independent researcher at the National Institutes of Health for 35 years, where he directed the Gene Structure and Regulation Section at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. He has won numerous awards including the Maryland Distinguished Young Scientist Award and the Ariens Kappers Award for Neurobiology."

Dean Hamer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My bad. But obviously, they're plebes compared to you.

​

 

[koshergrl]

I didn't say leading a good life leads to happiness, and that certainly isn't what Hamer said. What he said is that the God gene compels humans to interact in a way that creates a more functional society, and thus brings happiness to the participants of that society.

He might say that, but that is not what his study proves.

And whether or not you acknowledge it or even understand it, goodness does not exist separate from God. When you are good, it is because you are obeying God.

Convenient claim but completely unsubstantiated by anything but an old book.

Yes, the studies do certainly prove that atheism is not the natural state of man, and various and assorted researchers that I have linked have said precisely that...including the #1 genetecist in the world. If you want to maintain that you have better, different information that can negate these studies, by all means...provide it. Pssst..."I think" and "I feel" are not sufficient.

#1 geneticist in the world? This is the kind of thing that makes people in the community cringe. People in WHAT community? This sort of babble is what makes *people in the community* cringe. He may be a prominent geneticist. But there is no international ranking, nor should there be. There are tens of thousands of geneticist who disagree with him. Some whom he works with. Sure...go ahead and cite those guys. I keep asking for specifics, and you keep softshoeing.

Science is a accumulation of knowledge. You are picking and choosing what to believe from among a vast pool. You ignore the mountains of data from tens of thousands of scientist and zoom in on this one, or a few dozen. It's an absurd approach. Claptrap.

I cannot prove there is no god.

But I can easily prove the world is hundreds of millions of years old. To what end??? When did we start discussing the age of rocks? I can easily prove the universe is much older than that. Again, to what end? When did I argue about the age of the universe? I can prove that micro evolution has happened and we can see millions of data points that virtually all point to macro evolution as a valid theory (and among many scientific circles it's considered law). Good for you..what does that have to do with the God gene?

You can show a psychological study that may show children with undeveloped brains have a propensity to gullibility, Lol...a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the multiple studies that have been done, including the ones that isolated the God gene. an idea that is no surprise to anyone who has children. You have an old book that tells a bunch of unbelievable stories and gives some decent advise, along with some pretty horrific atrocities. You attempt repeatedly to fit the science to the book, but it's a tough row to how since the book is literally wrong on so many things.

I have no problem with your beliefs. Where I take issue is the absurd claims that it isn't a matter of belief. *cough*God gene*cough*. Your claims that the science and the facts back up said belief go against, not just most science, but what the bible says about faith itself. Nope.

The bible says "Faith is the evidence". Where? Evidence of what? Not that faith fills in the gaps. Not that faith is what you use until we figure it out, but that faith is the evidence.

But if that faith alone isn't good enough for you, that is between you and your god. I choose to base my convictions, my lifestyle and my post on the evidence and nothing more. And if by some miracle there is a god, I'll take my chances.

Still dancing around the fact that atheists lie about atheism being the *natural* default belief of infants, and the studies prove it. If you lie about that...well then, you're likely to lie about it all.

And you do. This post is full of logical fallacy and dishonesty, and it's just one of many in the thread.

 

[Underhill]

*yawn*...

I'm not reading anything into except that which the researchers themselves stated.

Again, I re-iterate. My interest in the studies is that it puts the lie to the atheist claim that children only seek God because they are indoctrinated to do so.

My point has been proven. Whatever point YOU have, feel free to make it. So far, you haven't.

Your point has been made. It certainly has not been proven.

If you knew anything about science you would know the difference.

 

[koshergrl]

My point was that atheists lie when they claim that atheism is the natural default of children.

It's proven to my satisfaction, certainly, and apparently to the satisfaction of scores of pre eminent researchers the world over.

Feel free to hold out, if you like. You just illustrate my second point...which is that atheists are anti-science, when the science topples their most dearly held myths.

 

[Underhill]

I didn't say leading a good life leads to happiness, and that certainly isn't what Hamer said. What he said is that the God gene compels humans to interact in a way that creates a more functional society, and thus brings happiness to the participants of that society.

He might say that, but that is not what his study proves.



Convenient claim but completely unsubstantiated by anything but an old book.

Yes, the studies do certainly prove that atheism is not the natural state of man, and various and assorted researchers that I have linked have said precisely that...including the #1 genetecist in the world. If you want to maintain that you have better, different information that can negate these studies, by all means...provide it. Pssst..."I think" and "I feel" are not sufficient.

#1 geneticist in the world? This is the kind of thing that makes people in the community cringe. People in WHAT community? This sort of babble is what makes *people in the community* cringe. He may be a prominent geneticist. But there is no international ranking, nor should there be. There are tens of thousands of geneticist who disagree with him. Some whom he works with. Sure...go ahead and cite those guys. I keep asking for specifics, and you keep softshoeing.

Science is a accumulation of knowledge. You are picking and choosing what to believe from among a vast pool. You ignore the mountains of data from tens of thousands of scientist and zoom in on this one, or a few dozen. It's an absurd approach. Claptrap.

I cannot prove there is no god.

But I can easily prove the world is hundreds of millions of years old. To what end??? When did we start discussing the age of rocks? I can easily prove the universe is much older than that. Again, to what end? When did I argue about the age of the universe? I can prove that micro evolution has happened and we can see millions of data points that virtually all point to macro evolution as a valid theory (and among many scientific circles it's considered law). Good for you..what does that have to do with the God gene?

You can show a psychological study that may show children with undeveloped brains have a propensity to gullibility, Lol...a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the multiple studies that have been done, including the ones that isolated the God gene. an idea that is no surprise to anyone who has children. You have an old book that tells a bunch of unbelievable stories and gives some decent advise, along with some pretty horrific atrocities. You attempt repeatedly to fit the science to the book, but it's a tough row to how since the book is literally wrong on so many things.

I have no problem with your beliefs. Where I take issue is the absurd claims that it isn't a matter of belief. *cough*God gene*cough*. Your claims that the science and the facts back up said belief go against, not just most science, but what the bible says about faith itself. Nope.

The bible says "Faith is the evidence". Where? Evidence of what? Not that faith fills in the gaps. Not that faith is what you use until we figure it out, but that faith is the evidence.

But if that faith alone isn't good enough for you, that is between you and your god. I choose to base my convictions, my lifestyle and my post on the evidence and nothing more. And if by some miracle there is a god, I'll take my chances.

Still dancing around the fact that atheists lie about atheism being the *natural* default belief of infants, and the studies prove it. If you lie about that...well then, you're likely to lie about it all.

And you do. This post is full of logical fallacy and dishonesty, and it's just one of many in the thread.

Put your post up there in pink and purple. I don't care.

Nothing I said is wrong. Your bible is not a scientific book. It is not scientifically even in the ballpark of accurate. And lastly the study is not proof of most of the things you are claiming.

So you are wrong. Have been wrong in virtually every discussion we've had on the subject. Big red type doesn't change anything. It just makes you look more desperate.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah. That wasn't the discussion. You keep changing the topic.

Which is...there is a god gene, so atheists can leave off arguing "it's not NATURAL for people to believe in God" and "if you put all the babies on an island and never exposed them to religion, they would never believe in a supernatural deity". The SCIENCE says otherwise.