Why do people believe in god?
- Thread starter LuckAse
- Start date
me said:
Do they need to be able to reason to follow a line of reasoning?Dywddyr said:
No that's the line of reasoning your argument is making. Your argument assumes that either a "baby" atheist can disbelieve the existence of a god and not know what is meant by god, or disbelieve the existence of god by knowing what god is supposed to mean. I don't think either possibility stands up to analysis.
A baby doesn't know what god is supposed to mean to either a theist or an atheist, nor do they know what an atheist or a theist is supposed to mean (to, you know, an adult who can think about it).
They probably don't know what "supposed to mean" means. You can suppose all kinds of things about newborn babies, but what you can't do is say they know how to make rational decisions about the existence or nonexistence of something they haven't managed to form any ideas about. That's ridiculous.
Another thing you can't say is that newborn infants don't have any understanding of god, or of belief. They haven't yet got the ability to think and communicate like adults, they think and communicate like infants. Infant's understanding may be less "developed", but it exists--how else do they learn about the world?
Last edited:
think about it..kids are more easily led to believe in fantasies and fairy tales.
his argument, although incomplete, has merit.
no one is perfect..
One more time: I haven't anywhere claimed that lack of belief is a rational decision.
Yet you'll claim they have a belief in god?
Only partially.
For example the claim "atheism is learned during socialization" doesn't stand up.
And his argument about theism being natural also falls.
If you convince kids from an early age that Santa Claus is real and there are churches, social conventions etc dedicated to Santa (and refutation of Santa isn't as easy as it actually is) then how long would they retain a belief in him?
Yes, there's a biological basis for belief, but where that gets directed is a social thing.
me said:
Well, I still claim as I did first of all that newborns don't have any belief, they can't think about things like "what does an adult mean, when they say god doesn't exist?"; they can't think about what things "mean".Dywddyr said:
If you look back over what I actually said instead of clinging desperately to your opinion of what it was:
And your reponse"me said:
Dywddyr said:
What a baby "knows" or "understands" is probably a long way from what you or I have learned about. Perhaps infants understand they have to learn about the world, or perhaps they don't have any understanding of anything. But then, how can they learn anything if they have no understanding at all?
Ascribing the adult conception of atheism to infants is not logical. That's what I said pretty much, and you haven't managed to show it is. Therefore infants are not "natural" atheists any more or less than they are "natural" theists. We can't really say because they don't discuss their beliefs with us, until they learn how to.
And before you fire up the "lack of belief" principle again: An infant that can't understand an adult concept can't lack belief in that concept. To lack belief in something implies that something is understood. An infant that lacks belief in atheism is a theist, by that rationale. An infant who doesn't understand democracy is a dictator, perhaps?
Last edited:
They don't have any belief. Therefore they don't believe. Got it?
Oops, wrong.
A lack of belief is sometime simply a lack of belief. No understanding required.
I see. So an atheist only has to be unable to understand the adult concept of god, so they lack belief in a concept they can't understand?Dywddyr said:
Why do so many atheists claim they don't believe in the God of the Bible then? Do they read the Bible and fail to understand it?
Infants don't have any belief. If that statement is true, how can they believe god doesn't exist? If they don't believe god doesn't exist instead, does that mean infants are natural theists?
Therefore:
. . . is a false analogy, a strawman argument.
Infants don't have any belief in adult concepts, therefore they don't believe because they haven't learned how to think about adult concepts.
That doesn't mean they're born natural atheists or any other kind of "-ist", except in a adult's mind who should know better.
You claim to be an atheist, but you've made it clear on many occasions that you DO understand the concept you say you don't believe is true.
Or are you seriously saying you don't understand this thing you also say you don't believe is true?
How did you manage that, did you turn back into an infant at some stage, and realise you didn't understand it because you didn't really understand anything?
Last edited:
An infant does not understand the idea of atheist. Therefore an infant cannot be a natural atheist. An infant does not understand the (adult) idea of god. Therefore an infant is a natural canvas for adults to assign belief to, when infants don't have beliefs themselves.
Concluding that a lack of understanding in infants means a lack of belief and so that means no belief in god, an adult concept, and so an infant is an atheist is pretty infantile.
Like, an infant doesn't understand how to spend money, so therefore an infant is a natural economist !?
I think we can conclude from the discussion in this thread that sometimes a lack of understanding is just a lack of understanding.
You have to have an understanding of something to be able to form an opinion of whether it's true or false. Infants don't have opinions, adults do. Sometimes, because of a lack of understanding, adults assign things to infants for which the infants provide no evidence. I believe that's known as wishful thinking.
It might be nice to believe that you can form a belief without understanding what it is you're supposed to believe or disbelieve, but I don't think that works very well.
Concluding that a lack of understanding in infants means a lack of belief and so that means no belief in god, an adult concept, and so an infant is an atheist is pretty infantile.
Like, an infant doesn't understand how to spend money, so therefore an infant is a natural economist !?
I think we can conclude from the discussion in this thread that sometimes a lack of understanding is just a lack of understanding.
You have to have an understanding of something to be able to form an opinion of whether it's true or false. Infants don't have opinions, adults do. Sometimes, because of a lack of understanding, adults assign things to infants for which the infants provide no evidence. I believe that's known as wishful thinking.
It might be nice to believe that you can form a belief without understanding what it is you're supposed to believe or disbelieve, but I don't think that works very well.
Last edited:
realitystrand
Registered Member
a·the·ist
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
To be an atheist requires a decision about the existence of God as does a theist.
It is not a default position or state. Under the argument that an infant can not know about God they cannot make a decision. And since both theist and atheist require the action of making a decision about the topic the infant does not automatically default to atheist. Until they understand and make a decision both possibilities exist. But It is still not that simple in that there are many definitions about what God is from both camps. So the next question is "making a decision about which version of God?" A baby defaulting to Atheist is no more sound than saying politically it will default to a Democrat or a Republican. Are they the only choices? Politically for example, I am an Independent.
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
To be an atheist requires a decision about the existence of God as does a theist.
It is not a default position or state. Under the argument that an infant can not know about God they cannot make a decision. And since both theist and atheist require the action of making a decision about the topic the infant does not automatically default to atheist. Until they understand and make a decision both possibilities exist. But It is still not that simple in that there are many definitions about what God is from both camps. So the next question is "making a decision about which version of God?" A baby defaulting to Atheist is no more sound than saying politically it will default to a Democrat or a Republican. Are they the only choices? Politically for example, I am an Independent.
um..this is a problem atheist have with theists..
this is why i argue 'think for yourself' vs 'do as your told'
this is why i argue Man vs God (who you going to listen to?)
this is why i like Dyw..(if yur head gets too big, we will shoot at it..)
hehe..another who doesn't believe that sciforums is rewriting the dictionary...
there is nothing in the bible to invalidate that.
realitystrand
Registered Member
If you use byproduct analysis, coupled with the sequence of events in the first chapter of Genesis the invalidation should jump off the page.
Read The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales.
The author makes the argument that what children find appealing about fairy tales are certain aspects of moral reasoning.
Not the hocus-pocus of the events and things (such as wolfs swallowing whole people or making strides of seven miles), but the fact that the characters in fairy tales face difficult decisions and trials - and get through them.
If anything, it is the adults who focus on the hocus-pocus of fairy tales - and many stay there ...
kx000
Valued Senior Member
However, they might know. We would never know, they have no means, and see no need to communicate what they know to us.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Yes
Doh.
It isn't really very complicated. If you don't understand something you lack understanding, and if you don't believe something you lack belief. Both of the lacks are because of the same something.
If you lack understanding of the principles of gravity and free fall, you might believe you can fly instead of falling. If you understand gravity, you should believe that you can't fly, but it's completely up to you.
Lack of understanding precludes belief. Saying you "lack belief" might mean you also lack understanding. So there are four possibilities:
1) You understand it and you believe it's true (that gravity for instance, means unaided flight isn't possible if you're a human).
2) You understand it and you don't believe it's true, you "lack belief" (so you don't believe you will fall towards the ground if you jump off a building--tough luck for you).
3) You don't understand it and you believe something else that isn't true (see 2)
3) You don't understand it and you don't believe it because you don't understand. (you've never seen an object falling, in your infantile world you still have to learn about falling objects, and that you will fall over a lot as you learn to walk).
So I think atheists and theists alike should be clear about their meaning. Do they mean they lack belief in the existence of a god because they've never really understood the concept--they are learning to "walk" as it were, or do they mean they've got past the understanding requirement and can form a genuine belief?
If they do mean the latter option, this is not something infants are capable of, so please stop assigning capabilities to people who don't have them. Infants aren't even "people" yet, are they people?
It isn't really very complicated. If you don't understand something you lack understanding, and if you don't believe something you lack belief. Both of the lacks are because of the same something.
If you lack understanding of the principles of gravity and free fall, you might believe you can fly instead of falling. If you understand gravity, you should believe that you can't fly, but it's completely up to you.
Lack of understanding precludes belief. Saying you "lack belief" might mean you also lack understanding. So there are four possibilities:
1) You understand it and you believe it's true (that gravity for instance, means unaided flight isn't possible if you're a human).
2) You understand it and you don't believe it's true, you "lack belief" (so you don't believe you will fall towards the ground if you jump off a building--tough luck for you).
3) You don't understand it and you believe something else that isn't true (see 2)
3) You don't understand it and you don't believe it because you don't understand. (you've never seen an object falling, in your infantile world you still have to learn about falling objects, and that you will fall over a lot as you learn to walk).
So I think atheists and theists alike should be clear about their meaning. Do they mean they lack belief in the existence of a god because they've never really understood the concept--they are learning to "walk" as it were, or do they mean they've got past the understanding requirement and can form a genuine belief?
If they do mean the latter option, this is not something infants are capable of, so please stop assigning capabilities to people who don't have them. Infants aren't even "people" yet, are they people?