RE: Atheists don't exist
July 24, 2014 at 6:53 am
(This post was last modified: July 24, 2014 at 6:55 am by Fidel_Castronaut.)
Article claims we are born believers and not atheists. I believe this is a mis/erroneous quotation.
I believe the article meant to say that we are born with the propensity to believe which is what current scientific literature would suggest, not that we are born actually believing in a god or gods which is not only absurd, it's also demosntrably false (I use myself as evidence).
Articles also appears to suffer from an inherent bias about 'god' . Notice it's entirely singular and only referes to a 'god', not deities, which would be more accurate as there is no definition of god. I haven't looked into the article's author(s) but to me this reeks of an agenda.
Finally, it's based seemingly on a personal incredulity fallacy, using examples where people can't come to terms with a given issue and thus automatically conclude a god (or simply 'god', as the article says).
What I will say however is that the artcile is based on the notion of 'belief' and not the validity of god claims. If it were the latter, it would fall entirely into an argumentum ad populum fallacy as that appears to be all it utilises to suggest a 'god' is real.
I believe the article meant to say that we are born with the propensity to believe which is what current scientific literature would suggest, not that we are born actually believing in a god or gods which is not only absurd, it's also demosntrably false (I use myself as evidence).
Articles also appears to suffer from an inherent bias about 'god' . Notice it's entirely singular and only referes to a 'god', not deities, which would be more accurate as there is no definition of god. I haven't looked into the article's author(s) but to me this reeks of an agenda.
Finally, it's based seemingly on a personal incredulity fallacy, using examples where people can't come to terms with a given issue and thus automatically conclude a god (or simply 'god', as the article says).
What I will say however is that the artcile is based on the notion of 'belief' and not the validity of god claims. If it were the latter, it would fall entirely into an argumentum ad populum fallacy as that appears to be all it utilises to suggest a 'god' is real.