Searching for GOD...

[Aruntraveller]

No, I don't think you are like Vlad, to be clearer it's like Alien's use of 'But that's not what most atheists say' as if it is a useful point. It's OK as a question. But it isn't useful as any form of argument. Gonzo continually posts a many ways approach so deal with what he says, not ask him to justify other theists/Christians/Glaswegians. 'you are all individuals'

Oh I'd never ask him to justify other Glaswegians - they're far too contrary.

[Nearly Sane]

Beliefs - discrete, relatable pieces of conceptualisation - require a linguistic framework in which to exist. The absence of language in infants precludes the existence of belief.

O.

It precludes the existence of belief by bat shit too, but stating atheism is the natural position for bat shit to take would be crazy. Lack of belief needs that linguistic framework to make any useful sense.

[Outrider]

It precludes the existence of belief by bat shit too, but stating atheism is the natural position for bat shit to take would be crazy. Lack of belief needs that linguistic framework to make any useful sense.

Atheism is not an active position, it's the absence of belief. That absence can come about by any number of routes, and the lack of a linguistic capacity can be one of them.

I wouldn't stretch to saying that it's our natural state to remain atheist, but we are born atheist - we are born not buying into a particular belief system. That comes, if it comes, later.

O.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

We are born atheists

ah well!!

I think you're confusing having beliefs with having the capacity - inclination, even - for belief.

No, that is your confusion.

We are born to believe, not born to disbelieve.

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

Dear Outrider,
 ah well!!

No, that is your confusion.

We are born to believe, not born to disbelieve.

Gonnagle.

Born to pattern seek and believe those patterns.

Not born to believe in god, that is the wrong pattern some assume when the real pattern is not known.

[floo]

Comfortably sat on his fluffy white cloud,
 Strumming his harp God was musing aloud,
“With no shadow of doubt
Darwin worked it all out,
Evolution’s the business, I’m really so proud.” 

RJG

[Leonard James]

Dear Outrider,
 ah well!!

No, that is your confusion.

We are born to believe, not born to disbelieve.

Gonnagle.

We are born to accept what our parents tell us ... it's an evolved instinct to get us safely to adulthood.

God beliefs are useless in that respect, but are part of the package.

[Leonard James]

Comfortably sat on his fluffy white cloud,
 Strumming his harp God was musing aloud,
“With no shadow of doubt
Darwin worked it all out,
Evolution’s the business, I’m really so proud.” 

RJG

 

[Outrider]

Dear Outrider,

We are born to believe, not born to disbelieve.

Gonnagle.

Which I've said myself. What I've also said, though, is that we are born not believing anything - our natural state is a capacity for belief, perhaps, but our natural state is devoid of any specific belief.

O.

[Shaker]

Dear Trent,

What our Sane just said, one of the sayings attributed to Our Lord is, I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me, I am not supposed to argue with the teachings of Our Lord but that one jars

That would seem to be contradicted by: "In my Father's house there are many mansions."

[Nearly Sane]

Atheism is not an active position, it's the absence of belief. That absence can come about by any number of routes, and the lack of a linguistic capacity can be one of them.

I wouldn't stretch to saying that it's our natural state to remain atheist, but we are born atheist - we are born not buying into a particular belief system. That comes, if it comes, later.

O.

But since a piece of shite is atheist in that sense, it is a tediously unimportant statement that ar a state where neither belief or a sensible lack of belief is possible that there is no belief.

[Shaker]

My gut feeling tells me the floor under my feet is solid, but it isn't really. My gut feeling is that time and space are absolutes, but now we know they aren't really.

The big advances in scientific understanding have all confounded our intuitions, all of which evolved not because they were true, but because they were useful.

The "trained and organized common sense" view of science as advanced by T. H. Huxley was given a thorough kicking by, amongst others, Lewis Wolpert in The Unnatural Nature of Science, where he argued (unarguably, in my view) that the more sophisticated that science has become and the more we've discovered about the world, the less reliable our common sense realist intuitions about the world become. To stand on the floor or sit on a chair, and to be able to know that we're not quite actually in direct contact with either - that's true, but unnatural.

[Nearly Sane]

Which I've said myself. What I've also said, though, is that we are born not believing anything - our natural state is a capacity for belief, perhaps, but our natural state is devoid of any specific belief.

O.

So ou natural state is what we are when we are born, and any other subsequent state isn't natural? Really? Care to justify that piece of 'logic'?

[BeRational]

But since a piece of shite is atheist in that sense, it is a tediously unimportant statement that ar a state where neither belief or a sensible lack of belief is possible that there is no belief.

It is tediously simple yes, but Gonnagle seems to think something else.

I think he is saying that belief in a god is there, and that atheism is not the default position, even though as you say it is the only possible position at that point.

[Sriram]

Which I've said myself. What I've also said, though, is that we are born not believing anything - our natural state is a capacity for belief, perhaps, but our natural state is devoid of any specific belief.

O.

But we are said to be born hardwired to believe in a God.

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

Which means that belief in God and an after life is more than just 'nurture'.

[BeRational]

So ou natural state is what we are when we are born, and any other subsequent state isn't natural? Really? Care to justify that piece of 'logic'?

This is the default position, that we ALL move away from for different reasons.

[Outrider]

So ou natural state is what we are when we are born, and any other subsequent state isn't natural? Really? Care to justify that piece of 'logic'?

No, as I've said above it's not our natural state to remain atheist - I don't think, in terms of belief, the idea of a 'natural state' has any meaning.

I'm countering the claim that, because we have an evolved tendency towards seeing agency in patterns, that we are 'naturally' believers.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

The "trained and organized common sense" view of science as advanced by T. H. Huxley was given a thorough kicking by, amongst others, Lewis Wolpert in The Unnatural Nature of Science, where he argued (unarguably, in my view) that the more sophisticated that science has become and the more we've discovered about the world, the less reliable our common sense realist intuitions about the world become. To stand on the floor or sit on a chair, and to be able to know that we're not quite actually in direct contact with either - that's true, but unnatural.

I really like Wolpert's book but the term unnatural is essentially meaningless here and ends up with a shed load of badly used magic thinking imported into a discussion. Counter-intuitive might be a better term.

[Shaker]

I really like Wolpert's book but the term unnatural is essentially meaningless here and ends up with a shed load of badly used magic thinking imported into a discussion. Counter-intuitive might be a better term.

I agree - perhaps natural wasn't the greatest choice of word.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Berational,

Born to pattern seek and believe those patterns.

Thankyou, I rest my case.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

No, as I've said above it's not our natural state to remain atheist - I don't think, in terms of belief, the idea of a 'natural state' has any meaning.

I'm countering the claim that, because we have an evolved tendency towards seeing agency in patterns, that we are 'naturally' believers.

O.

I suggest you don't argue against the use of terms as natural by, on your own admittance here, misusing the term.

[BeRational]

Dear Berational,

Thankyou, I rest my case.

Gonnagle.

So you agree that we are not born to believe in a god?
We are just born to believe typically what our parents tell us in the first instance, and then from any number of places that we get information and experience of.

The god bits are just misplaced patterns.

[ippy]

 

Gonners,

We're "born" to look for and accept patterns and explanations. There is a theory that religion is a misfiring or a by-product of that instinct, but that's a different matter from discussion about the objects of our beliefs. Belief is a general phenomenon; belief in your or any other god specifically isn't.

This has been explained to Gonners time and time again, I reminded him of much the same a little while ago, the answers he gives to this rational might just as well be, "well god says", all Gonners is, is on this topic is another Alan, only with manners.

Like Alan there's no getting through to Gonners.

ippy

[Rhiannon]

Yes, he seems like a harmless crank at first, but then we get the talk of shallow logic and the devil putting thoughts in your head - hello, here is that awful arrogance which some Christians possess and of course, told them that they should persecute those who are possessed by the devil.

So behind the politeness, lies something quite chilling.  He knows best, and you are quite shallow and demonic.

Agree with this, Wiggs.

[Nearly Sane]

So you agree that we are not born to believe in a god?
We are just born to believe typically what our parents tell us in the first instance, and then from any number of places that we get information and experience of.

The god bits are just misplaced patterns.

What is your methodology for them being misplaced?(Whatever a 'misplaced' pattern is?)