Is Atheism a fantasy?

[paarsurrey1]

Is Atheism a fantasy?
If not, why not? Please

Regards

[Artie]

Why is atheism the default position?

As far as I understand, the entire known history of mankind would suggest the exact opposite. There are no known cultures (even isolated cultures) that were atheistic; all of them had some form of spirit/god belief.

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

First the sperm cell and the egg cell combine. Then that combined DNA produces our bodies and brains. The question is whether that DNA is "programmed" to produce a brain hardwired to believe in the existence of gods or not. If so, theism is the default position for that person.

Do you assert that the programming of humans is therefore set to non-theism? If so, what evidence do you have?

Like tamy suggested, there is more evidence across human history of an innate or pre-programming for theism.

You might be interested in these articles then.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... laims.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/infants- ... -3l3b.html

[KingandPriest]

Why is atheism the default position?

As far as I understand, the entire known history of mankind would suggest the exact opposite. There are no known cultures (even isolated cultures) that were atheistic; all of them had some form of spirit/god belief.

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

First the sperm cell and the egg cell combine. Then that combined DNA produces our bodies and brains. The question is whether that DNA is "programmed" to produce a brain hardwired to believe in the existence of gods or not. If so, theism is the default position for that person.

Do you assert that the programming of humans is therefore set to non-theism? If so, what evidence do you have?

Like tamy suggested, there is more evidence across human history of an innate or pre-programming for theism.

You might be interested in these articles then.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... laims.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/infants- ... -3l3b.html

Both of the links you provided support the position that we are programmed to believe in God, or programmed for theism.

The next question any person who claims to depend on reason and logic may ask is why is this the case?

For any who believe in evolution and natural selection, the question must be raised, why has nature selected this mechanism to be passed down and programmed into the human race?

An additional question could also be raised, that if nature or natural selection favors this pre-programming, wouldn't those who reason themselves away from this programming eventually end up doomed? Even from a purely naturalistic stand point, what species which has defied natural selection, had a favorable eventuality?

[Goat]

Atheism is the default position. Whether it is a fantasy or not depends on whether there is or isn't any gods. It's up to theists to demonstrate a god. So you tell me. Is Atheism a fantasy? If so, why?

As far as I can tell, this thread is an attempt at shifting the burden of proof.

Hello,

Wouldn't agnosticism be a more correct default position.

Asserting a lack of belief is an actual position, and does not leave room for discovery. Typically, a default position leaves room for additional information. Would you agree?

Personally, I would not, because atheism is a conclusion based on the lack of definition of 'what is god', and the lack of evidence for a God.

Just to clarify, are you asserting that atheism is a default position?
I am not sure if you are responding to the latter question, "do you agree", or if you are stating that atheism is not a default position.

I would then ask, how is something that is arrived at as a conclusion a default position?

The mere fact that one has to conclude, means they did not start or originate with that thought. Please clarify if you meant it another way.

It might not be correct, due to lack of information, but like all conclusions, it is tentative based on current evidence. It does not mean rejecting further information.

So it is better to say, like the agnostics do, they cannot affirm or deny based on the evidence. It appears as though you are arguing for and against yourself at the same time.

Before you can say that agnosticism is the default position, you first have to define 'what' is god. Can you provide a model of what God is that does not depend on actions of what God is supposed to be, nor using terms that are metaphysical and purely conceptual in nature?

Why does a definition or a model of what God is have to be a prerequisite?

I do not follow your train of thought, please expound.

Because, before you can say 'I don't know what I believe about something' you have to know what that something is.

Define what God , not by what god does, but the substance of what God is, and using terms that are not merely conceptual and metaphysical. Can you?

[Fundagelico]

I can, in principle, show you arguments that demonstrate belief in God to be rational, but I can’t show you God himself.

I disagree, in principle you can show me God himself. Whether you actually can or not is a different (practical and hence outside of principle) matter.

God by definition cannot be seen – at least if we're talking Christian theology – unless of course he decides to reveal himself (as during the Incarnation of Christ on earth). Therefore I cannot show you God himself, not even in principle.

Let’s suppose all the propositional arguments you’ve ever made on this board are sound. Does that mean the truths represented by your conclusions have been empirically discovered?

Surely that depends if the premises of said propositional arguments are empirically verified or not, doesn't it? Or am I missing your point?

Okay, let's suppose now that all the premises are empirically verified. The rational inference from any number of empirically verified premises to a conclusion still could not itself be empirically verified. Inferences and entailments are no more empirically discoverable than wild guesses, because reason is not a physical entity. Reason is like God in that respect.

[Artie]

Why is atheism the default position?

As far as I understand, the entire known history of mankind would suggest the exact opposite. There are no known cultures (even isolated cultures) that were atheistic; all of them had some form of spirit/god belief.

Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

First the sperm cell and the egg cell combine. Then that combined DNA produces our bodies and brains. The question is whether that DNA is "programmed" to produce a brain hardwired to believe in the existence of gods or not. If so, theism is the default position for that person.

Do you assert that the programming of humans is therefore set to non-theism? If so, what evidence do you have?

Like tamy suggested, there is more evidence across human history of an innate or pre-programming for theism.

You might be interested in these articles then.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... laims.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/infants- ... -3l3b.html

Both of the links you provided support the position that we are programmed to believe in God, or programmed for theism.

The next question any person who claims to depend on reason and logic may ask is why is this the case?

For any who believe in evolution and natural selection, the question must be raised, why has nature selected this mechanism to be passed down and programmed into the human race?

An additional question could also be raised, that if nature or natural selection favors this pre-programming, wouldn't those who reason themselves away from this programming eventually end up doomed? Even from a purely naturalistic stand point, what species which has defied natural selection, had a favorable eventuality?

Scientists are trying to figure out how supernatural beliefs evolved.
https://www.livescience.com/52364-origi ... liefs.html
If Muslims continue to be fruitful and multiply they will outnumber Christian births by 2035 and atheists will be left behind.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 69576.html
What would the world be like if everybody believed in the existence of one or more gods and were religious? Would it be beneficial or detrimental for the human race?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 23 by Goat]

Because, before you can say 'I don't know what I believe about something' you have to know what that something is.

Most agnostics would not say they "don't know what they believe". Instead from my experience many state they don't have enough information or proof to affirm or deny. This is starkly different.

Define what God , not by what god does, but the substance of what God is, and using terms that are not merely conceptual and metaphysical. Can you?

To a degree the two are linked. To explain what God is and ignore or refuse to include what He does, ignores the basis that you are trying to discover.

If you are asking solely for a physiological answer to the question, what is God, then you may be able to ignore what He has done. But if you are asking who God is, or how can a person identify God, then you must include what He has done.

For example, if you are asking me what God is (in terms of composition or structure) then my answer to you would be, John 4:24 "God is Spirit".

If you are asking who God is, then my answer would be the creator of the universe and mankind. The title is representative of His actions and power. The tile of God is a title about position and authority. The person of God will be described by His actions. The attributes will be descriptive of both physiology and actions.

[Bust Nak]

God by definition cannot be seen – at least if we're talking Christian theology – unless of course he decides to reveal himself (as during the Incarnation of Christ on earth). Therefore I cannot show you God himself, not even in principle.

I can't see the wind, but you can show me the wind with experiment. That's what I had in mind.

Okay, let's suppose now that all the premises are empirically verified. The rational inference from any number of empirically verified premises to a conclusion still could not itself be empirically verified. Inferences and entailments are no more empirically discoverable than wild guesses, because reason is not a physical entity. Reason is like God in that respect.

I would say it has been empirically verified though, what are scientific theories, if not the conclusion of rational inference from empirically verified premises?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 25 by Artie]

I will repost my questions as you have skipped over questions which are truly pertanent to this discussion.

1. Why are we pre-programmed for a belief in God or a causality based creator?
2. Why has nature selected this mechanism to be passed down and programmed into the human race?
3. What species which has defied natural selection, had a favorable eventuality?

Scientists are trying to figure out how supernatural beliefs evolved.
https://www.livescience.com/52364-origi ... liefs.html
If Muslims continue to be fruitful and multiply they will outnumber Christian births by 2035 and atheists will be left behind.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 69576.html

The link you posted speaks more about human behavior and not about the programming which we were discussing earlier. It is the programming that is in question, not the subsequent behavior. My question is how did this programming come to be, and why has natural selection chosen this method?

If we are to believe that over millions and billions of years of evolution, that this programming is present, the next question is why? Is this programming there because it was intended to be their by design, or chance. If it is chance, what is the benefit to the development of man. Thusfar, these questions appear to be intentionally skipped.

What would the world be like if everybody believed in the existence of one or more gods and were religious? Would it be beneficial or detrimental for the human race?

I can only point to history and show that the human race did not end when the majority if not nearly everyone believed in God. The fact that we are here typing away is proof that that did not result in the extinction of our species.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 25 by Artie]

I will repost my questions as you have skipped over questions which are truly pertanent to this discussion.

1. Why are we pre-programmed for a belief in God or a causality based creator?

Because those whose DNA happened to produce a brain wired for belief got a survival advantage and it was their DNA that got passed on to offspring.

2. Why has nature selected this mechanism to be passed down and programmed into the human race?

Those with this mechanism were just more likely to survive and produce offspring.

3. What species which has defied natural selection, had a favorable eventuality?

Which species do you have in mind that has defied natural selection?

The link you posted speaks more about human behavior and not about the programming which we were discussing earlier. It is the programming that is in question, not the subsequent behavior. My question is how did this programming come to be

It came to be as different gene combinations produced different brains and getting a brain wired to believe gave a survival advantage.

and why has natural selection chosen this method?

I don't think I understand the question. All kinds of gene combinations produce all kinds of organisms and brains. Including a brain wired for belief.

If we are to believe that over millions and billions of years of evolution, that this programming is present, the next question is why? Is this programming there because it was intended to be their by design, or chance. If it is chance, what is the benefit to the development of man. Thusfar, these questions appear to be intentionally skipped.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/th ... ion-evolve

What would the world be like if everybody believed in the existence of one or more gods and were religious? Would it be beneficial or detrimental for the human race?

I can only point to history and show that the human race did not end when the majority if not nearly everyone believed in God. The fact that we are here typing away is proof that that did not result in the extinction of our species.

Interesting. Please quote your sources for how many have believed in the existence of your particular god throughout history.

[Fundagelico]

I can't see the wind, but you can show me the wind with experiment. That's what I had in mind.

Noted. In that case let me amend my original statement to read, "God by definition cannot be empirically detected." That's because God by definition is not a physical entity within the observable universe.

The same could be said of whatever it is an atheist might believe brought the observable universe into existence: quantum fluctuations, extra-dimensional strings, natural processes no longer in observation, etc. Given that these things exist(ed) prior to the birth of the observable universe, they are also not empirically detectable in principle.

I would say it has been empirically verified though, what are scientific theories, if not the conclusion of rational inference from empirically verified premises?

I agree, that's pretty much what scientific theories are. But why insist that an inference from the data has the same epistemic status as the data themselves? Recall that a theory is more than a collection of facts. This is why one may (provisionally) confirm a theory with empirical data, but not vice-versa.