"Blind faith" versus "choosing to believe"

[stevevw]

Wrong. We can also be unconscious of our biases.

Ok so we can also unconsciously choose our biases. Actually thats a good argument that Ive used for evolutionists choosing evolution or for those who only see bad things in the bible and about God. Of course they tell me there is absolutely no bias and they are basing things one truth and facts.So maybe I should explain things a little better. The studies are saying that belief is a natural cognitive behavior in humans. Something that is in us from birth and we are born with it. We are not born with biases.

Whether we are aware of biases or not and I would argue that we really are but we choose to deny and bury them. But biases are learnt and we will form them over time through our experiences and influences. If we have had a personal experience that is negative about something we may them form a bias against it through that experience. But these studies say belief in a God like agent, the afterlife and things like that are a natural part of us. We can become overly biased towards religion as well and believe something because we are indoctrinated. But that doesn't change the fact that we have a basic and natural inclination to believe in things beyond our world.

I know when I was growing up the big questions were who am I, where do we go when we die. Is there anything beyond this world and where did it all come from. These things caused us to look to things beyond our world and cause us to believe that there may be something out there. It is easier for a child to believe these things. Maybe thats why Jesus said we need to become like children in our faith. But this gets knocked out of many as they grow. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a real question and possibility to begin with. Because it was there in the first place as a natural part of us then maybe there was something to it.

You changing the words in no way alters my point: many other biases/inclinations/dispositions also come "naturally" to us. This doesn't mean that we should accept whatever our biases/inclinations/dispositions lead us to believe. Such behaviour is antithetical to science. Do we need to go through the thesaurus entries for "bias," "inclination," and "disposition" before you address the substance of my point?

Like I said I would rather trust the experts than someones personal opinion that may even be subject to a bias that you are not aware of as you say against belief and religion. The point is the experts are saying that belief comes naturally and starts at a very young age. Test have been done to take into account biases and even when there has been an influence the other way where it was anti belief and religion young people still had a natural inclination to believe in things beyond what they see. We dont even have to rely on the studies. If we use our logic and common knowledge we will see that young children will be more inclined to believe in the supernatural and fairy tales and all those things and its not because of any bias. They just have that disposition.

Earlier, you appeared to be arguing that our apparent natural inclination toward superstition somehow warrants religious belief. Are you admitting that this is not the case?

No God an an entity is a separate debate from belief itself. You can believe in something besides God. I have always said that even atheism can be a belief but they just believe that there is no God. They can prove there is no God 100% so there has to be an element of belief involved. So I happen to believe in God and think that this is the best way for me to direct my belief. But other people can direct their beliefs towards 101 other things like cults, astrology, Masons, UFOs, crystals and even people or certain ways of living. But becuase we all have this need to believe in something it shows that belief itself is a natural part of us.

So can religion. In fact, I wish to amend my earlier statement: at best, religion is superfluous to morality; at worst, it is a catalyst for immorality.

No humans are a catalyst for immorality. You dont want to go down that track as you can find many more immoral things without religion. Politics and money are also catalysts for immoral behavior. But its humans who are the common denominator in it all. In fact if you really dont believe there is no God then religion is a result of evolutionary thought. So all the bad behavior is the result of evolution. But you cant blame religion for the bad behavior of people who do the same things in non religious situations. And because people do bad things associated with religion doesn't mean a belief in God is bad or wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

[paulm50]

Yes. There are several documents written by witnesses who saw the risen Jesus after he was crucified and they were collected into the bible around 200 AD.

But let's stay on target:
The point of the OP is that an atheist cannot rationally claim that we Christians have a blind faith (as in having zero evidence) and at the same time claim that the only way people come to believe is through evidence. The two claims are contradictory. Whether or not there is evidence (subjective, objective, real, or imaginary) is a different question.

The question is not about how many atheists do this but "isn't it contradictory if they do?"

Can you post a link to these documents, written at the time of the resurrection by the witnesses please.

That's the problem with blind faith. We have so much evidence the bible is wrong. Like juvenissun once confronted with evidence and asked for evidence to reply. You back away.

The truth of the written word can only go so far. It needs real evidence to back it up. Saying a book was written by a witness, when all that exists s copies of that book written 100s of years after. Relies on man, who is full of sin, to faithfully copy the words. To claim they're the word of god, relies on him telling the truth and all the writers after him.

Evidence the bible is wrong.

These creatures roamed the Earth for millions of years. The evidence is being found every day.

The problem with blind faith is it opens up people to manipulation. Someone says you mustn't eat pork or blood, because back in the days of the bible, it was likely to be infected.

They then tell you to execute people for eating pork or blood.

Or to go to war and kill 100,000s because it was gods will. Blind Faith removes the will to question orders from a man who may be lying.

 

[Joshua260]

Actually, if you recall, I stated that no atheist has ever claimed that blind faith is faith simply with lack of evidence (although a Christian did just claim that, maybe that's why you're so confused) and likewise has claimed that belief is only ever based on evidence. No atheist has ever told you that.

If you further recall, I was the one who pointed out that belief is based on influence, not evidence.

You were the one who went on about the evidence of the resurrection, so I replied in turn.

So your answer is that they are contradictory like I just said. Thanks again for your response.

 

[Joshua260]

Like I said, we disagree on this one. Move on.

So you believe they are not contradictory? Ok. Thanks for responding.

 

[juvenissun]

What regulates breathing in a rock?

Good question. It is regulated by the composition of the rock and the texture (structure) of the rock. So, the content of breathing could be different, but the function is the same. By the way, this question is not related to the definition of life. Human and tree also breathe differently.

 

[juvenissun]

What is this maturing process and stages?
...

How does it breathe out?
I'm a researcher, and yes they are strange as your definitions defy the standard, recognized, scientific ones. Are you a scientist?

Rock matured just like human. It keep changing according to the environment and it will eventually die.

Material (gas, for example) leaks out of the rock. That is breathing out.

I am a rock scientist. Rock is not alive (why not?). But I can try to make it fit the current definition of life. So, by the definition of life as you know it, a rock should be alive.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok so we can also unconsciously choose our biases.

That sentence doesn't make sense.

Actually thats a good argument that Ive used for evolutionists choosing evolution or for those who only see bad things in the bible and about God. Of course they tell me there is absolutely no bias and they are basing things one truth and facts.So maybe I should explain things a little better.

You're rambling.

The studies are saying that belief is a natural cognitive behavior in humans. Something that is in us from birth and we are born with it. We are not born with biases.

Still doesn't detract from my point. Use whatever word you wish - bias, inclination, disposition, etc.

But these studies say belief in a God like agent, the afterlife and things like that are a natural part of us. We can become overly biased towards religion as well and believe something because we are indoctrinated. But that doesn't change the fact that we have a basic and natural inclination to believe in things beyond our world.

As I said previously: many other biases/inclinations/dispositions also come "naturally" to us. This doesn't mean that we should accept whatever our biases/inclinations/dispositions lead us to believe. Such behaviour is antithetical to science.

I know when I was growing up the big questions were who am I, where do we go when we die. Is there anything beyond this world and where did it all come from. These things caused us to look to things beyond our world and cause us to believe that there may be something out there. It is easier for a child to believe these things. Maybe thats why Jesus said we need to become like children in our faith. But this gets knocked out of many as they grow.

Perhaps part of our intellectual growth is a natural inclination to question?

But that doesn't mean it wasn't a real question and possibility to begin with. Because it was there in the first place as a natural part of us then maybe there was something to it.

Something to what?

Like I said I would rather trust the experts than someones personal opinion that may even be subject to a bias that you are not aware of as you say against belief and religion. The point is the experts are saying that belief comes naturally and starts at a very young age. Test have been done to take into account biases and even when there has been an influence the other way where it was anti belief and religion young people still had a natural inclination to believe in things beyond what they see. We dont even have to rely on the studies. If we use our logic and common knowledge we will see that young children will be more inclined to believe in the supernatural and fairy tales and all those things and its not because of any bias. They just have that disposition.

And? What point are you trying to make from this?

No God an an entity is a separate debate from belief itself. You can believe in something besides God. I have always said that even atheism can be a belief but they just believe that there is no God. They can prove there is no God 100% so there has to be an element of belief involved.

You have been on this forum long enough to know that there is a difference between not being convinced that there is a God and being convinced that there is no God.

So I happen to believe in God and think that this is the best way for me to direct my belief. But other people can direct their beliefs towards 101 other things like cults, astrology, Masons, UFOs, crystals and even people or certain ways of living. But becuase we all have this need to believe in something it shows that belief itself is a natural part of us.

We have beliefs about various things. And? Is this leading up to some point?

 

[paulm50]

So your answer is that they are contradictory like I just said. Thanks again for your response.

Blind Faith in the bibles writings is based on the misinterpretation of evidence.

If one claims the biblical flood never happened, that would be wrong. There's a mass of evidence a flood happened in the region of the Black Sea. It's the people of the time telling a story and not knowing it only happened in the parts of the land they knew and put it down to god being angry. Same with Sodom and Gomorrah, Plagues of Egypt, and every time the Jews were defeated.

If one insists on following that line, one must assume the holocaust and numerous pogroms was due to god being angry again with the Jews. Which we now know was born out of hatred and Jews refusing to mix with fellow countrymen. Because of their blind faith.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes. There are several documents written by witnesses who saw the risen Jesus after he was crucified

No there weren't.

The question is not about how many atheists do this but "isn't it contradictory if they do?"

If the number of atheists who do this is zero, what's the point of the discussion?

 

[KCfromNC]

Unbelievable. You're actually now saying that personal testimony is not really evidence but only "influence"? Tell that to a judge. Desperate times call for desperate explanations, eh?

So do you accept the personal religious testimony of Muslims around the world, or do you admit that personal religious testimony really isn't good evidence for deciding which religion to follow?

 

[KCfromNC]

We have multi-attestation from all of these types of sources that support the following:

1. Jesus was crucified.
2. The apostles were adamant that they had seen the risen Jesus, even on threat of death.

So any religion which has had followers die for it is true?

3. The (highly unlikely) conversion of Paul.
4. The conversion of James the skeptic.

Any religion which has converts is true?

5. That the tomb was empty.

So if the writings of a religion say it is true, then it must be true?

If you were actually consistent with these weak standards of evidence you'd have to accept pretty much every religion out there. But you obviously don't since you reject similar claims from lots of other religions. The weird thing is why you'd think that anyone else would accept them for yours.

 

[stevevw]

That sentence doesn't make sense.

Why be so pedantic, it doesn't matter as this is a side issue. The point is as I have said a few times now that belief is something that comes natural to us.

You're rambling.

Well if your going to continually side track things then I may as well go along with it.

Still doesn't detract from my point. Use whatever word you wish - bias, inclination, disposition, etc.

I dont think your even listening or acknowledging what I or the study is saying. It does make a difference because natural cognitive thought processes are not a bias. Its a natural and normal part of being a human being. You are getting caught up on the meanings of words rather than the meaning of the whole point.

The studies are there for you to see but for some reason you are more interested in what the meanings of particular words are. Do you know what cognitive means. It means thinking, a humans thought processes. So when the study says that religious belief is a normal part of a humans cognitive process it is saying that belief is a part of normal human thinking. Not prejudiced thinking or bias thinking or being indoctrinated but normal thinking.

As I said previously: many other biases/inclinations/dispositions also come "naturally" to us. This doesn't mean that we should accept whatever our biases/inclinations/dispositions lead us to believe. Such behaviour is antithetical to science.

And as I have said several times that this study is showing that religious belief is not based on bias thinking but normal cognitive thought processes that are there from birth. We are natural born believers.

Perhaps part of our intellectual growth is a natural inclination to question?

Thats probably right. We should question things. But it seems that we also have this natural ability to believe some things despite all the evidence that may say it doesn't make sense or is true. We still have this belief that there is something beyond what we see that is at work in life and existence that may have a part to play in life. This has been found through the studies linked which show despite people saying one thing about not believing in these things their actions and more so their natural cognitive processes show the opposite.

Something to what?

Something to our belief. Because we have this belief in something beyond what we see that can have an affect on life then maybe there is something to that belief. If its a natural part of us like the need to love and be loved and not something that is made up then maybe it is there for a reason. Maybe we are meant to look beyond this material world for the answers and not restrict ourselves to everything being 100% what we can see and touch. Because maybe some of the answers we are looking for are beyond what we can see and prove.

And? What point are you trying to make from this?

That belief is a normal and natural part of being human. It doesn't mean we are deluded, it doesn't mean we are off with the fairies or it doesn't mean we have been brain washed. Though this can happen to us as well because we are not using all our human abilities of reason and logic as well. We are a multi dimensional being where we have a spiritual, mental and physical side to us. If we just base everything on the mental and analyze everything and not have that belief and trust that goes beyond this then we are incomplete and dont have that extra dimension which can make us a complete person.

If we just believe anything and dont use our minds to reason then we are incomplete and can go off in all sorts of tangents. There has to be a balance. But many people now a days reject anything to do with belief in anything beyond our material physical world so they are rejecting an important part of being human.

You have been on this forum long enough to know that there is a difference between not being convinced that there is a God and being convinced that there is no God.

But that is what belief is about. A belief despite not having 100% proof. That belief has a power and has practical applications in peoples lives. It is a powerful thing that studies have shown it works and can affect peoples health and well being for the better. So even without the evidence to convince someone to the point that they would take the risk to trust something people still believe.

We have beliefs about various things. And? Is this leading up to some point?

If you havnt got that point yet then I dont know what else to say.
Atheists Become Emotionally Aroused When Daring God to Do Terrible Things
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10508619.2013.771991

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why be so pedantic, it doesn't matter as this is a side issue. The point is as I have said a few times now that belief is something that comes natural to us.

Belief about what comes naturally to us?

Well if your going to continually side track things then I may as well go along with it. I dont think your even listening or acknowledging what I or the study is saying. It does make a difference because natural cognitive thought processes are not a bias. Its a natural and normal part of being a human being. You are getting caught up on the meanings of words rather than the meaning of the whole point.

And that point is?

The studies are there for you to see but for some reason you are more interested in what the meanings of particular words are. Do you know what cognitive means.

I have a psychology degree.

It means thinking, a humans thought processes. So when the study says that religious belief is a normal part of a humans cognitive process it is saying that belief is a part of normal human thinking. Not prejudiced thinking or bias thinking but normal thinking.

'Normal' thinking is not free of biases.

And as I have said several times that this study is showing that religious belief is not based on bias thinking but normal cognitive thought processes that are there from birth. We are natural born believers.

And we grow up to be natural skeptics too. That's why we build systems of accountability in government, law, and science.

Thats probably right. We should question things. But it seems that we also have this ability to believe some things despite all the rational evidence that there is something beyond what we see that is at work in life and existence.

What does our inclination to believe something have to do with its truth?

Something to our belief. Because we have this belief in something beyond what we see that can have an affect on life then maybe there is something to that belief.

Or maybe there isn't. It bears repeating, again, many inclinations come "naturally" to us. It doesn't follow that we should accept whatever our inclinations lead us to believe. We know our inclinations are not infallible. We know that we are prone to error and cognitive biases. That alone is enough to give us pause to reflect.

That belief is a normal and natural part of being human. It doesn't mean we are deluded, it doesn't mean we are off with the fairies or it doesn't mean we have been brain washed. Though this can happen to us as well because we are not using all our human abilities of reason and logic as well. We are a multi dimensional being where we have a spiritual, mental and physical side to us. If we just base everything on the mental and analyze everything and not have that belief and trust that goes beyond this then we are incomplete and dont have that extra dimension which can make us a complete person.

If we just believe anything and dont use our minds to reason then we are incomplete and can go off in all sorts of tangents. There has to be a balance. But many people now a days reject anything to do with belief in anything beyond our material physical world so they are rejecting an important part of being human.

I reject the premise that we need to give in to superstition in order to become "complete" people.

But that is what belief is about. A belief despite not having 100% proof. That belief has a power and has practical applications in peoples lives. It is a powerful thing that studies have shown it works and can affect peoples health and well being for the better. So even without the evidence to convince someone to the point that they would take the risk to trust something people still believe.

You know what else yields practical benefits? Questioning and investigating claims; not credulously believing whatever one hears, but examining whether such claims have merit. The practical benefits of critical discourse and inquiry include, but are by no means limited to, the very machine you are now using to read this.

 

[stevevw]

Belief about what comes naturally to us?

Well if you read the articles I linked you would know. It was saying that belief in general religious concepts of life beyond the grave, divine entities, mind-body dualism came natural to children. But studies also said that the origins and character of religious concepts in adults may be a natural cognitive process and a default way of thinking for humans.

This review examines recent research into religious rituals, communication and transmission of religious knowledge, the development of god-concepts in children, and the origins and character of religious concepts in adults. Together, these studies consistently emphasize and support the notion that the cultural phenomena typically labeled as 'religion' may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10637620?dopt=Abstract

And that point is?

The point is that all humans no matter if they claim to be atheists or whatever have this natural process of believing in the concepts of things beyond our reality. Of believing in divine agents and other religious concepts. Its just that many will lose that or block it out with other things. They may become to skeptical and reject everything. They may rely on everything having to be 100% proven all the time. Whereas it is a natural state for humans to also live with belief in things without the proof all the time. If we dont allow and acknowledge this we are denying an important part of being human.

I have a psychology degree.

Thats good ten you should be understanding this. But at the same time just because you have a psychology degree doesn't mean you will not have some personal views about what the evidence represents and that there wont be debate about why people do what they do. I also have studied human behavior and have worked in the industry for years. But I can also refer to other experts like this study which is done by universities as well.
.

'Normal' thinking is not free of biases.

Ok we can debate semantics. Yes bias is part of normal thinking. But we can decern what is normal as far as being without bias in the sense that most people think that way. As opposed to people being swayed one way or another about something. But yer a bias can be regarded as a normal part of thinking in the sense that we all can have biases. But that is not what this study is saying about belief. There can be a normal cognitive thought process about belief that comes natural without any influence that will cause a person to be swayed one one or another. Then there can be influences and experiences that will affect that normal thought process to become biased. But that comes from being affected by outside influences. Its like saying its normal to be happy in a certain situation. But outside influences can affect a person and make them feel sad in a situation where they should feel happy. But the normal way of thinking is that they should be happy in that situation unless they have been affected by something.

And we grow up to be natural skeptics too. That's why we build systems of accountability in government, law, and science.

I agree. But it doesn't change the fact that we start out as natural born believers. What can happen is we can become to skeptical and lose that ability or maybe its a quality of belief. Some throw the baby out with the bath water. Now maybe that can be the result of biases. Maybe parents who had a big influence on forming the child's attitudes towards religion o either turn them off or on to religion. But either way they took on an extreme one sided view from their experiences and didn't maintain a balanced view. I am saying part of a balanced view is to include belief.

What does our inclination to believe something have to do with its truth?

Well if you get away from bias as the influence for belief and see that its as natural cognitive thought process then maybe its there for a reason. Its not so much truth that God is real but a truth that belief is a part of us and should be used and acknowledged. Thats what those studies were trying to establish I guess. So rather that belief being automatically dismissed by some as hog wash it can be considered as a real part of being human. So that is the truth of the matter. It all depends what truth you are looking for.

Or maybe there isn't. It bears repeating, again, many inclinations come "naturally" to us. It doesn't follow that we should accept whatever our inclinations lead us to believe. We know our inclinations are not infallible. We know that we are prone to error and cognitive biases. That alone is enough to give us pause to reflect.

But it also doesn't follow that we should reject our natural thinking about belief because people think that belief is unreal or a deluded way of thinking.

You keep saying inclination and maybe I shouldn't have used that word as it tends to be associated with a position that is influenced to one way or another and therefor can be different for different people and subject to being questioned. This study is saying that belief isn't something that initially is unaffected by influences but is just there in us as a natural default way of thinking. IT can then be influenced later in life by biases and people then then later be inclined to think one way or another. So I am not sure its about distrusting it because it may be based on something that we can have more than one position on. Its just is what it is as a natural state in us from the beginning just like the need to have love and companionship.

I reject the premise that we need to give in to superstition in order to become "complete" people.

I think your taking it to another level here. I dont think they are advocating to believe in any certain things. But more that we need to acknowledge and include belief systems as part of being human. That may entail just being open to belief in things beyond what we see so that we can be open to a more holistic approach to life.

You know what else yields practical benefits? Questioning and investigating claims; not credulously believing whatever one hears, but examining whether such claims have merit. The practical benefits of critical discourse and inquiry include, but are by no means limited to, the very machine you are now using to read this.

I totally agree. As I said we are a multi dimensional being. We have to use all our abilities. But one without the other makes us incomplete in my opinion. We should be open to belief in things beyond what we see but we also need to question things and reason with our logical minds. But after doing this sometimes there is room to allow and be open to there being answers that may also go beyond the logic and evidence that may be involved. We are seeing this more and more with even some recent discoveries in science.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well if you read the articles I linked you would know. It was saying that belief in general religious concepts of life beyond the grave, divine entities, mind-body dualism came natural to children. But studies also said that the origins and character of religious concepts in adults may be a natural cognitive process and a default way of thinking for humans.

This review examines recent research into religious rituals, communication and transmission of religious knowledge, the development of god-concepts in children, and the origins and character of religious concepts in adults. Together, these studies consistently emphasize and support the notion that the cultural phenomena typically labeled as 'religion' may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10637620?dopt=Abstract

In what way does it detract from my earlier point?

The point is that all humans no matter if they claim to be atheists or whatever have this natural process of believing in the concepts of things beyond our reality. Of believing in divine agents and other religious concepts. Its just that many will lose that or block it out with other things. They may become to skeptical and reject everything. They may rely on everything having to be 100% proven all the time. Whereas it is a natural state for humans to also live with belief in things without the proof all the time. If we dont allow and acknowledge this we are denying an important part of being human.

How many times must it be repeated? Many inclinations come "naturally" to us. It doesn't follow that we should accept whatever our inclinations lead us to believe. We know our inclinations are not infallible. We know that we are prone to error and cognitive biases. That alone is enough to give us pause to reflect.

Thats good ten you should be understanding this. But at the same time just because you have a psychology degree doesn't mean you will not have some personal views about what the evidence represents and that there wont be debate about why people do what they do. I also have studied human behavior and have worked in the industry for years. But I can also refer to other experts like this study which is done by universities as well.

If you recall, in our discussion on evolution, you cited a number of studies as support for your position, and I demonstrated to you that those studies did not support your position. In fact, in some cases, the authors' stated the opposite! Do you really want to go down that road again?

I agree. But it doesn't change the fact that we start out as natural born believers.

We also start out naked. By your argument then, we should embrace nudity. It's normal.

What can happen is we can become to skeptical and lose that ability or maybe its a quality of belief. Some throw the baby out with the bath water. Now maybe that can be the result of biases. Maybe parents who had a big influence on forming the child's attitudes towards religion o either turn them off or on to religion. But either way they took on an extreme one sided view from their experiences and didn't maintain a balanced view. I am saying part of a balanced view is to include belief.

I don't see anything "balanced" about your suggestion. Your argument seems to be the equivalent of saying that, because we are born naked, we should remain naked all our lives. It's "natural".

Well if you get away from bias as the influence for belief and see that its as natural cognitive thought process then maybe its there for a reason.

Maybe our natural tendency toward questioning claims is there for a reason too? So that we don't end up duped, perhaps?

Its not so much truth that God is real but a truth that belief is a part of us and should be used and acknowledged. Thats what those studies were trying to establish I guess. So rather that belief being automatically dismissed by some as hog wash it can be considered as a real part of being human. So that is the truth of the matter. It all depends what truth you are looking for.

Questioning beliefs is also a real part of being human. Investigating a claim and finding that it is "hog wash" is also a real part of being human.

But it also doesn't follow that we should reject our natural thinking about belief because people think that belief is unreal or a deluded way of thinking.

It also doesn't follow that we should remain naked because we are born naked.

 

[bhsmte]

Good question. It is regulated by the composition of the rock and the texture (structure) of the rock. So, the content of breathing could be different, but the function is the same. By the way, this question is not related to the definition of life. Human and tree also breathe differently.

Just for clarification then, what is your position on the following in regards to whether they are "alive" or not?

-worms
-jellyfish
-rocks

 

[Ana the Ist]

Together, these studies consistently emphasize and support the notion that the cultural phenomena typically labeled as 'religion' may be understood as the product of aggregated ordinary cognition.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10637620?dopt=Abstract
Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief - belief in mind-body dualism, and belief in divine agents -- come naturally to young children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17181713?dopt=Abstract
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_...ist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982#ixzz3bisXOyvO
There is no such thing as a true Atheist
http://www.heavennet.net/writings/atheist.htm

I'm going to quote this post again before I move onto the next one where you posted 6(?) links...because I think I should address something here.

First, your strategy for providing evidence to support your claims is awful Steve. Your claim that you're supporting with this post is that we are "all born believers" and continue this belief as young children. Believers, of course, refers to theism as the context is provided by the OP. It's easy to forget about this since none of the links you provided even attempt to research this claim...not one. It's hard for me to think that this is something you don't know...because you do this a lot.
Typically, you make a claim that's not supported by science...then someone calls you out on it. You then provide a bunch of links to either research, articles about research, or just flat out opinions. My guess is that you only read the links yourself maybe half the time...because as I just pointed out, none of the links you provided here support your claim. Are you just hoping that the other poster won't click the links? Maybe you think if he does...he surely won't read them?
I know from personal experience that when I do point out to you that your "evidence" doesn't say what you claim it does...or that it's deeply flawed in some way...you just continue doing the same thing. You did it in this thread as well. You just ignore what I said and posted more links (which also don't back up your claim or are just as deeply flawed).
So here's some tips to providing evidence to back up your claims....
1. Provide a link and briefly summarize what the content is and how it is evidence for your point.
2.Make sure the article has either some of the research info in it, or links to the research info.
3. Research info should include a couple of the following-sample size, sample makeup, sample questions, percentages of different responses, (basically the info that shows how the conclusion was reached).
4. Find out, if possible, if the research was peer reviewed.
5. Once you have all this info...explain how the conclusion reached proves the point you were making. Offer to explain anything to those who don't understand (there's always one).

Once you start doing these things instead of just pasting links to articles you haven't read, people will begin to respect your claims....or at least stop trying to refute them.

Now a brief summary of why your links in the post I quoted here are awful. The first two are abstractions...not conclusions. They have zero information about the research done. In your next post you tell me not to dismiss them until I've completely checked them out...but unless you bought them, you haven't checked them out either.
The third link is by far the worst because the writer is completely biased. How do I know this? Because he's lying. He mentions that 1/3 of all atheists and agnostics express a belief in god. He references a Pew study as evidence. I looked up the Pew study and it says that 1/3 of self described not very religious people express a belief in god. That's a huge difference.
The last blog is merely opinion...but it's already been refuted by Juvenisson. The fact that there is no evidence for god is itself evidence god doesn't exist...apparently at least one christian on this thread agrees with me.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm going to quote this post again before I move onto the next one where you posted 6(?) links...because I think I should address something here.

First, your strategy for providing evidence to support your claims is awful Steve. Your claim that you're supporting with this post is that we are "all born believers" and continue this belief as young children. Believers, of course, refers to theism as the context is provided by the OP. It's easy to forget about this since none of the links you provided even attempt to research this claim...not one. It's hard for me to think that this is something you don't know...because you do this a lot.
Typically, you make a claim that's not supported by science...then someone calls you out on it. You then provide a bunch of links to either research, articles about research, or just flat out opinions. My guess is that you only read the links yourself maybe half the time...because as I just pointed out, none of the links you provided here support your claim. Are you just hoping that the other poster won't click the links? Maybe you think if he does...he surely won't read them?
I know from personal experience that when I do point out to you that your "evidence" doesn't say what you claim it does...or that it's deeply flawed in some way...you just continue doing the same thing. You did it in this thread as well. You just ignore what I said and posted more links (which also don't back up your claim or are just as deeply flawed).
So here's some tips to providing evidence to back up your claims....
1. Provide a link and briefly summarize what the content is and how it is evidence for your point.
2.Make sure the article has either some of the research info in it, or links to the research info.
3. Research info should include a couple of the following-sample size, sample makeup, sample questions, percentages of different responses, (basically the info that shows how the conclusion was reached).
4. Find out, if possible, if the research was peer reviewed.
5. Once you have all this info...explain how the conclusion reached proves the point you were making. Offer to explain anything to those who don't understand (there's always one).

Once you start doing these things instead of just pasting links to articles you haven't read, people will begin to respect your claims....or at least stop trying to refute them.

Perfect summary, of why I always skip over his posts.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is a lot of evidences of God. Too many evidences.

I've never seen you propose any.

 

[JGG]

So your answer is that they are contradictory like I just said. Thanks again for your response.

What I said is that your claim that atheists do this is wrong. As you agree that no atheist has made such statements, perhaps the question should be if it is contradictory when Christians ask it, as you're the only one making such claims.