Children are born believers in God, academic claims

[varelse]

In the sense that it has to be taught, sure.

As with religion, including belief in deity as conceived in any given faith, as opposed to a vague concept of Mind, Will, or motivation behind the actions of a ball, the clouds, the world at large, or anything else that appears to act in some way. Deity (or ghosts, or Spirits, or whatever), as such, however being defined in the conception of a given belief system is learned from society or developed intellectually, and is in its turn an explanation developed intellectually to explain the Mind or Will originally imagined by the brains instinctive attempts to construct an explanatory model of the perceived universe.

a seems to perform action act b (sky thunders [makes loud noise], Johnny cries...)

the brain seeks to explain this action or change in state through a process something like this:
why would I do such a thing?
because c (I am angry, I am hurt, etc)
a must be performing action b because a is c (the sky is mad, johnny is hungry..)

Generally, this system is a smashing success. It allows us to attribute Will and purpose to others' actions and, if not understand them correctly, at least construct a model of their possible motives. It makes empathy possible. It works awesome for making interaction between moral agents possible. The side effect is that the brain does this for everything, even when there is no real evidence to suggest a has a mind, and so we attribute thunder to an angry sky-mind (a concept the intellect further refines to an anthropormorphized spirit of the sky)and yell at inanimate objects to 'STAY!' when they are about to fall.

 

[varelse]

Ethics are what do what you claim

Thanks for sharing the above incomprehensible claptrap. When you have something coherent to say, let me know.

1) Just because I write at a level exceeding your reading level (I've always excelled at English writing and comprehension; math not so much) not mean it is not comprehensible to people with superior reading comprehension skills to your own.

2) Why would you assume I am an atheist? For one thing, I never stated as much. For another, I made a reference to 'my gods' earlier in this very thread. Perhaps you should makes less assumptions. You would appear less like an ignorant/arrogant bigot.

 

[varelse]

our societies would just be..packs.

They are. Nations, gangs, cliques.. they're all just in-groups, packs acting in their own interest in classic us-versus-them (and extension of Self versus Other) style in accordance with perceived risk/reward. I refer you to any rudimentary psychology, sociology, or praxeology course.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, whatever.

 

[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.

see weak or agnostic atheism, if you're looking for what I think you are



Therefore, theism and atheism are essentially the same thinking with different conclusions. Only in the cases of gnostic or strong atheism 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?

theism, by definition, seeks superatural explanation. An atheist necessarily seeks/accepts explanations consistent with the natual world

You are providing me with more definitions. A definition which does not accurately reflect reality is worthless. So let me try to restate my point. Any opinion on the subject of gods are beliefs in that there is no relevant factual evidence upon which to base them. To truly lack beliefs, you must have no opinions on the subject. You must be neutral. I am pushing forward toward my 7th decade of life and in all of that time I have never met a single person who had no opinions about gods. I suppose it is possible, but I have yet to find an example. To say one has no beliefs on the basis of a definition is merely an example of dogma.

 

[PratchettFan]

In the sense that it has to be taught, sure.

As with religion, including belief in deity as conceived in any given faith, as opposed to a vague concept of Mind, Will, or motivation behind the actions of a ball, the clouds, the world at large, or anything else that appears to act in some way. Deity (or ghosts, or Spirits, or whatever), as such, however being defined in the conception of a given belief system is learned from society or developed intellectually, and is in its turn an explanation developed intellectually to explain the Mind or Will originally imagined by the brains instinctive attempts to construct an explanatory model of the perceived universe.

a seems to perform action act b (sky thunders [makes loud noise], Johnny cries...)

the brain seeks to explain this action or change in state through a process something like this:
why would I do such a thing?
because c (I am angry, I am hurt, etc)
a must be performing action b because a is c (the sky is mad, johnny is hungry..)

Generally, this system is a smashing success. It allows us to attribute Will and purpose to others' actions and, if not understand them correctly, at least construct a model of their possible motives. It makes empathy possible. It works awesome for making interaction between moral agents possible. The side effect is that the brain does this for everything, even when there is no real evidence to suggest a has a mind, and so we attribute thunder to an angry sky-mind (a concept the intellect further refines to an anthropormorphized spirit of the sky)and yell at inanimate objects to 'STAY!' when they are about to fall.

I would agree, but that does not get into the question of why this happens. In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, this is a result of sentience. We are aware of ourselves and our environment. We do not live only in the present, reacting to stimuli. We live in the past and the future, remembering and anticipating. We employ imagination on a constant basis, placing ourselves in multiple scenarios which exist only in our minds. This is our nature and our primary survival trait. We don't smell the lion in the grass, we imagine it. We believe in it. That belief keeps us alive and those who do not believe end up as lion food.

 

[Underhill]

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

Where did I, or any other atheist here, say that?

I think children aren't born with anything. I think they have no clue. I think that lack of knowledge means they are ready to believe anything.

The concept of god is the simplist answer. Any tool with a club and a cave can come up with the notion that, "I make fire, I make club, I make bed out of hay and grass, someone must have made me".

It's an easy idea to come up with. The problem with it is that while easy to imagine in the simplest terms, the reality is much different.

The more we learn in science the more difficult it becomes to claim we were created. The complexity that is the human condition does not make god more likely but less. The child or idiot does not understand this because they struggle to understand complex ideas. To them the idea of "someone made it all" is so incredibly simple a moron would believe.

But compare creation to the modern super computer. Humans like to think we are well on our way. But the reality is our world is trillions of times more complex, and took billions of years to get to this point. So any god would have to be, not just intelligent beyond all measure, but live forever (a concept that defies everything we know about science) and have immeasurable amounts of energy at his disposal (again, virtually impossible).

I realize this is going nowhere. I realize you are that caveman. But it seems there are a few intelligent posters here who may understand what I am getting at.

 

[Underhill]

Keep reading through the thread. Hamer. Hamer is the one who found the God gene.

So I was correct.

You had a conversation with someone else about this 'god gene' and then became pissy because I didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.

Brilliant.

 

[varelse]

Any opinion on the existence of anything is a belief, as nothing (savepossibly the Ego, Self, or I) can be known to exist.
Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

To say one has no beliefs on the basis of a definition is merely an example of dogma.

An atheist, by definition, does not believe in any god(s). That is the literal meaning of the term
a-without
theism-belief in deity

You're attributing meanings to atheism that are not accurate, and which actually relate to questions other than theism/atheism, such as gnosticism/agnosticism.

Strong atheist - believe deity does not exist

Weak atheism - does not believe in deity

theism - believe in deity/ies

gnostic - claiming absolute knowledge (sometimes used to refer to the belief that such knowledge is possible)

agnostic -not claiming absolute knowledge (sometimes used to refer to the belief that such knowledge is not possible)

theism/atheism is a matter of belief or non-belief in deity/ies, while gnosticism/agnosticism is a matter of epistemology

Strong atheism is actually a matter of belief, and a poorly-named term, IMO, as it helps to confuse terminology and make these discussions more of a headache than they should be. Most people I've known who call themselves 'strong atheist' were anti-theist (believing deity to be impossible or otherwise opposed to the concept on some sort of principle), often with some sort of chip on their shoulder.

In the sense that it has to be taught, sure.

As with religion, including belief in deity as conceived in any given faith, as opposed to a vague concept of Mind, Will, or motivation behind the actions of a ball, the clouds, the world at large, or anything else that appears to act in some way. Deity (or ghosts, or Spirits, or whatever), as such, however being defined in the conception of a given belief system is learned from society or developed intellectually, and is in its turn an explanation developed intellectually to explain the Mind or Will originally imagined by the brains instinctive attempts to construct an explanatory model of the perceived universe.

a seems to perform action act b (sky thunders [makes loud noise], Johnny cries...)

the brain seeks to explain this action or change in state through a process something like this:
why would I do such a thing?
because c (I am angry, I am hurt, etc)
a must be performing action b because a is c (the sky is mad, johnny is hungry..)

Generally, this system is a smashing success. It allows us to attribute Will and purpose to others' actions and, if not understand them correctly, at least construct a model of their possible motives. It makes empathy possible. It works awesome for making interaction between moral agents possible. The side effect is that the brain does this for everything, even when there is no real evidence to suggest a has a mind, and so we attribute thunder to an angry sky-mind (a concept the intellect further refines to an anthropormorphized spirit of the sky)and yell at inanimate objects to 'STAY!' when they are about to fall.

I would agree, but that does not get into the question of why this happens. In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, this is a result of sentience. We are aware of ourselves and our environment. We do not live only in the present, reacting to stimuli. We live in the past and the future, remembering and anticipating. We employ imagination on a constant basis, placing ourselves in multiple scenarios which exist only in our minds. This is our nature and our primary survival trait. We don't smell the lion in the grass, we imagine it. We believe in it. That belief keeps us alive and those who do not believe end up as lion food.

Exactly, the grass moves... why... maybe there's a snake... we imagine the lion, the snake, the angry sky spirit, or the mind/awareness of the other person because we seek to use our own experiences and motivations to explain the actions of other agents.

I think we're on the same page here, just reading different translations of the text

The more we learn in science the more difficult it becomes to claim we were created.

Unless you accept certain form of the simulation hypothesis...

The complexity that is the human condition does not make god more likely but less.

Not more or less likely, just less necessary to fill the gaps in our knowledge. See: God of the Gaps

Also, it kinda depends on one's conception and definition of 'god'

So any god would have to be, not just intelligent beyond all measure, but live forever (a concept that defies everything we know about science) and have immeasurable amounts of energy at his disposal (again, virtually impossible).

Of course.. the laws of physics as we understand them are only applicable within the universe...

 

[Hollie]

The "god gene" nonsense is a farce and is a part of the promotion of falsehoods so typical of the more excitable of the Christian fundie ministries.


A God Gene ?

What he found was that the brain chemicals associated with anxiety and other emotions, including joy and sadness, appeared to be in play in the deep meditative states of Zen practitioners and the prayerful repose of Roman Catholic nuns -- not to mention the mystical trances brought on by users of peyote and other mind-altering drugs.

As you might expect, Christian ministries were quick to pick up on the theme. However, as mist things related to the supernatural, the relevant science community, not holding a religious bias, were quick to note the fallacies of Dean Hamer's suppositions.

The God Gene Meme : The Loom

 

[koshergrl]

The "god gene" nonsense is a farce and is a part of the promotion of falsehoods so typical of the more excitable of the Christian fundie ministries.


A God Gene ?

What he found was that the brain chemicals associated with anxiety and other emotions, including joy and sadness, appeared to be in play in the deep meditative states of Zen practitioners and the prayerful repose of Roman Catholic nuns -- not to mention the mystical trances brought on by users of peyote and other mind-altering drugs.

As you might expect, Christian ministries were quick to pick up on the theme. However, as mist things related to the supernatural, the relevant science community, not holding a religious bias, were quick to note the fallacies of Dean Hamer's suppositions.

The God Gene Meme : The Loom

Keep eating that propaganda like a good atheist.

 

[koshergrl]

Keep reading through the thread. Hamer. Hamer is the one who found the God gene.

So I was correct.

You had a conversation with someone else about this 'god gene' and then became pissy because I didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.

Brilliant.

I assume that anyone who participates in these threads, arguing against the points made, actually follows the conversation. The conversation includes the entire body of the discussion...not just the stuff you decide to read. If you choose to skip over points, that's an indication of your own stupidity, not mine. But atheists are well known for skipping huge portions of available information, this is nothing new. Hamer was brought into the convo as *supporting evidence*, a concept that atheists are notoriously sketchy on.

 

[Underhill]

Keep reading through the thread. Hamer. Hamer is the one who found the God gene.

So I was correct.

You had a conversation with someone else about this 'god gene' and then became pissy because I didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.

Brilliant.

I assume that anyone who participates in these threads, arguing against the points made, actually follows the conversation. The conversation includes the entire body of the discussion...not just the stuff you decide to read. If you choose to skip over points, that's an indication of your own stupidity, not mine. But atheists are well known for skipping huge portions of available information, this is nothing new. Hamer was brought into the convo as *supporting evidence*, a concept that atheists are notoriously sketchy on.

It seems you skipped over the portion where atheist here handed you your ass.

But keep beating that horse.

 

[koshergrl]

How would you know? You just admitted you only read portions of the thread, and missed supporting evidence altogether.

 

[Hollie]

You're a liar. My piece on abiogenesis is rock solid. I am an expert on the matter. You are not, and you know it. Shut your filthy mouth! I don't tolerate the depravity of atheists thinking to steal the truth and lead others to hell. Go to hell by yourself.

You do not have "selective forces" in any coherent sense prior to life in an environment swimming in containments. Anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat and who has read my article knows I know what I'm talking about. Stop lying.




I'm not going to rewrite the article here. Read it!



That's not the issue! Read the article. With every breath you reveal your staggering ignorance. You're a liar. You know you don't have the sort of expertise to discuses this matter intelligently with me. I'm the expert here. Shut up.

You'll pass on the Kool Aid, eh? It's all down your shirt. You've been drinking it for years.


Again, that's not the essence of the problem! Stop guessing and making things up. Read the article.

You’re a fool. And anyone who grants you any credibility whatsoever on this matter is a fool.

I’m done with you. This last post is only for the sake of others, that you not mislead them.

All atheists are fools, but remember it is not them that you're hearing, but Satan. As maddening and frightening as they are, their souls also need Christ, and they also need to hear the word. They, more than anyone.

Yes.

Religious fundamentalism is a disease that breeds hate.

 

[koshergrl]

Atheists are in stellar company. I know you will recognize your own mindset in the following. Zealot atheists are fascists, pure and simple. Talk to us about hate. Atheists are anti-education, anti-Christian fascists who has committed some of the most heinous crimes the world has ever seen.:

"Most Communist governments have been officially anti-clerical, abolishing religious holidays, teaching atheism in schools, closing monasteries, church social and educational institutions and many churches.[52] In the Soviet Union, anti-clericalism was expressed through the state; in the first five years alone after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed."



Anti-clericalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hitler said (taken from the book Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944, His Private Conversatios):

"“It’s Christianity that’s the liar. It’s in perpetual conflict with itself.”

“As far as we are concerned, we’ve succeeded in chasing the Jews from our midst and excluding Christianity from our political life.”

"...Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the Roman world were proof against this doctrine.”

“When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.”

“Pure Christianity—the Christianity of the catacombs—is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind.”

“Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it’s the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries.”

“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance.”

“But Christianity is an invention of sick brains : one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery. A negro with his tabus is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in Transubstantiation.”

“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.”

“We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but the truth.”


“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”

“But, even so, it’s impossible eternally to hold humanity in bondage with lies. After all, it was only between the sixth and eighth centuries that Christianity was imposed on our peoples by princes who had an alliance of interests with the shavelings. Our peoples had previously succeeded in living all right without this religion. I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

If you're going to go out of your way to claim intellectual/educational superiority to someone at the beginning of your post, you might want to learn when to use 'an'. Using it incorrectly (much like the misuse of 'whom') simply makes you look like an idiot who's trying very hard to sound more educated than you actually are.

Just sayin'.

You're a liar. My piece on abiogenesis is rock solid. I am an expert on the matter. You are not, and you know it. Shut your filthy mouth! I don't tolerate the depravity of atheists thinking to steal the truth and lead others to hell. Go to hell by yourself.

You do not have "selective forces" in any coherent sense prior to life in an environment swimming in containments. Anyone with an IQ above that of a gnat and who has read my article knows I know what I'm talking about. Stop lying.




I'm not going to rewrite the article here. Read it!



That's not the issue! Read the article. With every breath you reveal your staggering ignorance. You're a liar. You know you don't have the sort of expertise to discuses this matter intelligently with me. I'm the expert here. Shut up.

You'll pass on the Kool Aid, eh? It's all down your shirt. You've been drinking it for years.

You also can't roll back the tape and watch Stonehenge being erected, but that doesn't mean you can't learn how it could have been accomplished. If you really want to go down the road of epistemology, you can't even prove that you exist, save perhaps to your own self (if you accept the cogito argument that perception of one's own thoughts proves one's own existence as a thinking/perceiving mind as a matter of self-evidence). You can never prove to me you exist, nor can I prove to you that I exist- we can only infer such things from the available information, in accordance with our own theory/model of other minds- which takes us back to the subject of this thread: application of a theory of other minds to the broader world one perceives- that is, religion and the imagining of deity (or the spirit of the wind, or the personality of a misbehaving machine) as an explanation of events through the lens of the imagined motivations of a conceived actor.

Again, that's not the essence of the problem! Stop guessing and making things up. Read the article.

You’re a fool. And anyone who grants you any credibility whatsoever on this matter is a fool.

I’m done with you. This last post is only for the sake of others, that you not mislead them.

All atheists are fools, but remember it is not them that you're hearing, but Satan. As maddening and frightening as they are, their souls also need Christ, and they also need to hear the word. They, more than anyone.

Indeed. But varelse is not telling the truth, and he knows it. He doesn't have any real knowledge or understanding of the matter, and he knows it. Hollie is not telling the truth either. And how do I know these things? I know these things because I do know the science. Atheists who know the science don’t argue with me on that score; instead, they argue with the article's pertinent philosophical/theological assertions. That I can respect.

Hollie and varelse, on the other hand, are phonies. They are monkey-see-monkey-do atheists spouting slogans.

Philosophy, theology, history, science: I’m the real deal. I’m merely calling them out, that they not mislead others.

 

[koshergrl]

I know they're lying. They get caught lying, and they bounce to another topic, disappear, or they just lie some more and crow they've won the argument. It's always the same with these fascist, anti-Christian fanatics. They use the same tactics when they argue the finer points of baby killing.

 

[PratchettFan]

Any opinion on the existence of anything is a belief, as nothing (savepossibly the Ego, Self, or I) can be known to exist.
Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

******************************************
True. But the subject here is gods. I would point out that while you could argue that I believe my keyboard exists, I am basing that belief upon direct sensory input. I see it, touch it, hear it. I could even taste it if I had the inclination. There is no such direct experience of gods. So when I speak of belief in this, I mean an opinion which is pure speculation as opposed to the assumption that my senses are not lying to me.
******************************************
To say one has no beliefs on the basis of a definition is merely an example of dogma.

An atheist, by definition, does not believe in any god(s). That is the literal meaning of the term
a-without
theism-belief in deity [/QUOTE]

***********************************
You are applying the suffix to the root before you apply the prefix. If you apply the prefix first you get a atheos - ism. The belief there is no god. While that may not be the popular defintion currently, I think it is far more accurate.
***************************************

You're attributing meanings to atheism that are not accurate, and which actually relate to questions other than theism/atheism, such as gnosticism/agnosticism.

Strong atheist - believe deity does not exist

Weak atheism - does not believe in deity

theism - believe in deity/ies

gnostic - claiming absolute knowledge (sometimes used to refer to the belief that such knowledge is possible)

agnostic -not claiming absolute knowledge (sometimes used to refer to the belief that such knowledge is not possible)

theism/atheism is a matter of belief or non-belief in deity/ies, while gnosticism/agnosticism is a matter of epistemology

Strong atheism is actually a matter of belief, and a poorly-named term, IMO, as it helps to confuse terminology and make these discussions more of a headache than they should be. Most people I've known who call themselves 'strong atheist' were anti-theist (believing deity to be impossible or otherwise opposed to the concept on some sort of principle), often with some sort of chip on their shoulder.[/AUOTE]

********************************************
Again, what you are doing is presenting me with definitions. I have already pointed out that these do not match actual behavior. When a definition does not match reality, it is the defintion which is wrong - not reality. You're just giving me dogma.
********************************************

I would agree, but that does not get into the question of why this happens. In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, this is a result of sentience. We are aware of ourselves and our environment. We do not live only in the present, reacting to stimuli. We live in the past and the future, remembering and anticipating. We employ imagination on a constant basis, placing ourselves in multiple scenarios which exist only in our minds. This is our nature and our primary survival trait. We don't smell the lion in the grass, we imagine it. We believe in it. That belief keeps us alive and those who do not believe end up as lion food.

Exactly, the grass moves... why... maybe there's a snake... we imagine the lion, the snake, the angry sky spirit, or the mind/awareness of the other person because we seek to use our own experiences and motivations to explain the actions of other agents.

I think we're on the same page here, just reading different translations of the text [/QUOTE]

*****************************************************
I agree with you there as well. Personally, I see gods as irrelevant. Perhaps they exist, perhaps not. I don't have the slightest idea and I don't think anyone else is better informed than me. I could be wrong, but I have seen no evidence yet to make me believe so. However, that humans do believe seems a fairly hard fact. For me that behavior of belief is what matters, not what is believed. Which is why I really fail to see any significant difference between theism and atheism.

 

[Underhill]

How would you know? You just admitted you only read portions of the thread, and missed supporting evidence altogether.

Yes, I missed it. And I have since read it, posted a response and dismissed it. As any reasoning person would.