Is Atheism Primarily a Scientific or Philosophical Question?

[Dimmesdale]

I've been wondering whether atheism as a subject of debate has more to do with science or with philosophy?

One isn't necessarily an atheist because of the problem of suffering, or that science can "disprove God" or any other philosophical question. Instead, one may simply be an atheist because the burden of proof rests on any given religion to provide sufficient SCIENTIFIC evidence to back up their God-claim.

Why SCIENTIFIC evidence, one might ask? Of course, there are certain things we "know" in one sense or other without science (things like there being a world external to us). But these are taken for granted whereas the God hypothesis can't be taken so for granted, for I suppose obvious reasons (that we also take for granted!). These reasons include all the competing claims of religion and their lack of coherence, the aspect of naturalistic alternative explanations, and I can go on and on. Many if not most of these reasons reduce to scientific reasons, it seems.

Thus I've come to the conclusion that the question of atheism is actually more scientific than philosophical.

[Zzyzx]

.

This is a DEBATE site, not a place to list unsupported claims. What SUPPORT do you have for your apparently baseless claim of a connection between infants and your (also unsupported) alleged "designer?"

I gave my support in post 35 and 37! So, I have followed the basic rule of a debate.

In reasoned debate it is NOT ‘supporting’ one’s opinion by stating one’s opinion again

However, there has been no "rebuttal support" from your end…Only a commonly used approach of asking questions…

Unless one can demonstrate that infants are born believing in gods, they cannot be claimed to believe in gods. If they do not believe in gods, they are Non-believers / Atheists (without belief in gods).

This is not how a debate is run. Where, the debate is: a discussion on a particular topic, in which opposing arguments (not questions) are put forward. So, it is not I, who is changing the rules of the debate.

Opinion noted

Those who cannot give sound and supported answers to questions in debate often appear to resent being asked questions that they cannot answer openly and honestly without betraying the fallacy of their position.

So, the idea that believers in God/gods have dominated this world for thousands of years is quite compelling evidence and the recent theories of the connection between God and the newborn is becoming more apparent and researched.

But, you must remember: The approval or acceptance of the support for the connection between God and the human being is not required or sought from those who don't believe that God exists…

This is an example of a Classic Blunder Argumentum ad populum -- a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so.".

If many or most believe(d) that the Earth is flat, is that evidence that the Earth is flat?

If many or most believe(d) that the Sun revolved around the Earth, is that evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

[FWI]

The topic is Atheism, without belief in gods. Infants cannot be shown to have belief in gods; therefore, they fit the definition.

No, I don't think so…The initial topic or question was: Is Atheism Primarily a Scientific or Philosophical Question? I stated that it was neither! I also stated:

The anti-God consensus is that disbelief is the default position and no one is born having a connection to the Creator (which, I disagree with). Where, beliefs are acquired through culture and education. So, it is accepted that it is not up to the atheist to justify atheism; rather, it is up to the theist to explain why belief in God is reasonable. However, in the absence of accepting such an explanation, theism is regarded as irrelevant and irrational by this counterculture (post 35).

And,

However, my comments didn't state that infants "believe" in gods…That would be nonsense. Yet, it's also nonsense that infants don't have some type of connection, with their Designer (post 37)…
(To the question: Is there evidence that newborn infants believe in gods? Post: 36)

Where, (in post 38) Zzyzx seemed to extract from these statements that I support that infants "believe" in God, which I clearly didn't write…Hence, changing the topic, unnecessarily...Which, seems to be a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting my argument, while actually refuting an argument that I didn't presented at all.

[Zzyzx]

.

The topic is Atheism, without belief in gods. Infants cannot be shown to have belief in gods; therefore, they fit the definition.

No, I don't think so…The initial topic or question was: Is Atheism Primarily a Scientific or Philosophical Question? I stated that it was neither! I also stated:

The anti-God consensus is that disbelief is the default position and no one is born having a connection to the Creator (which, I disagree with).

Atheism = without belief in gods.

‘Connection to the creator’ is not included (and has not been demonstrated)

Where, beliefs are acquired through culture and education.

If not acquired through culture and education, are beliefs inherited genetically? Are they magically instilled?

So, it is accepted that it is not up to the atheist to justify atheism; rather, it is up to the theist to explain why belief in God is reasonable.

Those who claim that infants have ‘a connection to the creator’ are expected and required to furnish evidence (not mere opinions and conjectures) that support their claim.

However, my comments didn't state that infants "believe" in gods…That would be nonsense. Yet, it's also nonsense that infants don't have some type of connection, with their Designer (post 37)…
(To the question: Is there evidence that newborn infants believe in gods? Post: 36)

Where, (in post 38) Zzyzx seemed to extract from these statements that I support that infants "believe" in God, which I clearly didn't write…Hence, changing the topic, unnecessarily...Which, seems to be a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting my argument, while actually refuting an argument that I didn't presented at all.

Note that post #41 quotes your statements verbatim and responds to them directly.

‘Connection to the creator’ is an opinion / projection that has not been demonstrated. How is that different from wishful thinking?

[FWI]

In reasoned debate it is NOT ‘supporting’ one’s opinion by stating one’s opinion again.

Yes, it is! Especially, when someone refuses to acknowledge the initial support comments…Thus, it is the responsibility of the reader to pay attention to what is being recorded and not just "cherry-pick" the posting. This is not being reasonable, it just appears to be an attempt to try and gain an advantage. Where, succeeding seems to be the main goal and the truth is unimportant!

Unless one can demonstrate that infants are born believing in gods, they cannot be claimed to believe in gods. If they do not believe in gods, they are Non-believers / Atheists (without belief in gods).

Again, Zzyzx is trying to interject an argument (to a point), which hasn't been introduced, except by himself. It is, as if, he seems to think that he can adjust the writings of others, which would then reflect a point of view that is more suitable. I used the term: connection, not believing.

Additionally, it is also clear that the understanding of: what is an atheist is not properly defined in the above statement…Where, a newborn or infant doesn't have any beliefs at all, because of their limited pool of experiences and the immaturity of the brain. So, the idea that newborns are atheists, because they don't believe in God is make-believe stuff or wishful thinking…Where, the numbers tells a whole different story.

Those who cannot give sound and supported answers to questions in debate often appear to resent being asked questions that they cannot answer openly and honestly without betraying the fallacy of their position.

Of course, this is the "common" retort used against individuals who just want to debate a topic and avoid the nonsense. But, some just want to bombard the topic, with unrelated questions, which add no real value to the discussion. These questions also seem to be used for changing the topic to a new and unrelated one. Where, if the presented support is not to the liking of an adversary, which it never is, the safety net is securely in place. So, it should be no surprise that many want the unnecessary and unrelated questions to be curtailed or they will just be ignored…This has nothing to do with not being able to answer, such unrelated questions.

For instance:

If many or most believe(d) that the Earth is flat, is that evidence that the Earth is flat?
If many or most believe(d) that the Sun revolved around the Earth, is that evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth?
(Questions supplied by Zzyzx)

The truth is that the ancients discovered or believed that the earth was round and orbited the sun during (about) the third century B.C. This was well before my time! So, it seems that these questions are used to try and dispel the reality that huge numbers of the religious have been around since the beginning (as opposed to the obviously low numbers of the dissenters) and almost all the religious belief systems point to a Creator. So, this reality is support enough that there is a connection between newborns/infants and God, until it can be "proven" otherwise…Hence, these questions are a non-issue and irrelevant to the topic and discussion. So, unless someone can prove that the overwhelming support for God's existence is not evidence that there is a connection between the parties involved, the case is closed…

[wiploc]

The truth is that the ancients discovered or believed that the earth was round and orbited the sun during (about) the third century B.C.

Since Einstein, we've known that motion is relative: It isn't true that the earth orbits the sun. That's a way of looking at things, a perspective, a viewpoint, not a truth.

[Zzyzx]

.

In reasoned debate it is NOT ‘supporting’ one’s opinion by stating one’s opinion again.

Yes, it is! Especially, when someone refuses to acknowledge the initial support comments…Thus, it is the responsibility of the reader to pay attention to what is being recorded and not just "cherry-pick" the posting. This is not being reasonable, it just appears to be an attempt to try and gain an advantage. Where, succeeding seems to be the main goal and the truth is unimportant!

Correction: Posts #35 & 37 are nothing more than statement of your opinion. They do NOT provide verification.

Unless one can demonstrate that infants are born believing in gods, they cannot be claimed to believe in gods. If they do not believe in gods, they are Non-believers / Atheists (without belief in gods).

Again, Zzyzx is trying to interject an argument (to a point), which hasn't been introduced, except by himself. It is, as if, he seems to think that he can adjust the writings of others, which would then reflect a point of view that is more suitable. I used the term: connection, not believing.

‘Connection’ is not belief in gods – and ‘connection’ has only been claimed; not evidenced.

‘Connection’ has nothing to do with Atheism

Additionally, it is also clear that the understanding of: what is an atheist is not properly defined in the above statement…

Atheism means without belief in gods. Apologists often attempt to impose their concepts of Atheism (and re-define other words as well) to fit their own arguments.

Where, a newborn or infant doesn't have any beliefs at all,

Exactly

because of their limited pool of experiences and the immaturity of the brain.

Agree

So, the idea that newborns are atheists,

Read again your own statement above ‘doesn’t have any beliefs at all’ – thus no beliefs in gods – thus ‘without belief in gods’ – Atheism = without belief in gods

because they don't believe in God is make-believe stuff or wishful thinking…Where, the numbers tells a whole different story.

What ‘numbers’ show that newborn believe in gods?

Where is that information available? Citations? URL?

Those who cannot give sound and supported answers to questions in debate often appear to resent being asked questions that they cannot answer openly and honestly without betraying the fallacy of their position.

Of course, this is the "common" retort used against individuals who just want to debate a topic and avoid the nonsense.

Do newborn believe in gods?

But, some just want to bombard the topic, with unrelated questions, which add no real value to the discussion. These questions also seem to be used for changing the topic to a new and unrelated one. Where, if the presented support is not to the liking of an adversary, which it never is, the safety net is securely in place. So, it should be no surprise that many want the unnecessary and unrelated questions to be curtailed or they will just be ignored…This has nothing to do with not being able to answer, such unrelated questions.

For instance:

If many or most believe(d) that the Earth is flat, is that evidence that the Earth is flat?
If many or most believe(d) that the Sun revolved around the Earth, is that evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

Let’s review what was said:

So, the idea that believers in God/gods have dominated this world for thousands of years is quite compelling evidence and the recent theories of the connection between God and the newborn is becoming more apparent and researched.

But, you must remember: The approval or acceptance of the support for the connection between God and the human being is not required or sought from those who don't believe that God exists…

This is an example of a Classic Blunder Argumentum ad populum -- a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so.".

If many or most believe(d) that the Earth is flat, is that evidence that the Earth is flat?

If many or most believe(d) that the Sun revolved around the Earth, is that evidence that the Sun revolves around the Earth?

It would seem as though any reasonably astute reader would realize that those two questions were presented as examples of the fallacy and to emphasize the foolishness of assuming that many believing is indication of truth and accuracy.

The truth is that the ancients discovered or believed that the earth was round and orbited the sun during (about) the third century B.C. This was well before my time!

Of course, SOME advanced thinkers for their era said that the Earth was spherical and was not the center of the solar system. Were those ideas widely accepted by the public?

Are you NOT aware that ‘many believed’ flat Earth and Geocentric solar system until fairly recent times?

Did many believing such things indicate that they were true?

So, it seems that these questions are used to try and dispel the reality that huge numbers of the religious have been around since the beginning (as opposed to the obviously low numbers of the dissenters) and almost all the religious belief systems point to a Creator.

Correction: The questions were asked to point out the classical blunder known as Argumentum ad Populum (fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so.")

So, this reality is support enough that there is a connection between newborns/infants and God, until it can be "proven" otherwise…

Atheism is NOT defined as ‘without a connection to gods’, Atheism IS ‘without BELIEF in gods’

Many believing is NOT indication of truth and accuracy.

A ‘connection’ has NOT been established – only suggestion and conjecture.

Hence, these questions are a non-issue and irrelevant to the topic and discussion. So, unless someone can prove that the overwhelming support for God's existence is not evidence that there is a connection between the parties involved,

Correction: You have claimed that infants / newborn have a ‘connection’.

Kindly present verifiable evidence that infants have that connection. INFANTS.


Do cultures and religions teach their young about gods?

the case is closed…

Perhaps in your imagination