Argument from nonbelief

[ninetailschris]

dsgrue3 said:

ninetailschris said:

I did a report on this in college for a paper it was really fun. If you want

some peer-review work or other experiments I will gladly help.

But as you can see the argument falls flat from here.

But I like to add the God of the bible  says it is possible that everyone can come into a personal relationship with him not that everyone will sadly.

If someone rejects God's it's part of there free-will to do that if they wish.

4.No one is born resistant to God. But they can turn resistant by influence of whatever comes there way.

5. Nothing factual supports this therefor is an assumption.

6. 4 and 5 as stated have not proved there case and by the evidence it would suggest the opposite.

7. Deductive reasoning needs to be fully investigated before arguing anything like this. This why you rarely see anyone

who are professional philosophers use an argument like this in a peer-reviewed paper.

I had fun having this conversation I hope we can converse some more.

 

(Disclaimer Dr. Barrette isn't claiming that evolution isn't true. He is claiming a person raised neutrally is more likely to believe

in creationist arguments than evolutionist. Manly believe it's less complex than the other.For personal note I'm a theist-evolutionist.)

 

Thank you!

Ignorance is not a good argument for a belief in God.

Dr. Barrette's argument is rather elementary and riddled with sophistry. 

Essentially: If we leave children to educate themselves, they will seek for an explanation for things rather than simply say well I don't know. And this type of logic will lead them to manifesting some sort of supernatural force or being. 

This type of argument would lead to all types of examples of absurdities such as god controls the wind and the tides and the weather, all of which we know is simply untrue due to our education.

It is no coincidence that arguments from ignorance are commonplay with the religious.

By the way, apparently you missed Jay's clarification on "non-resistently unaware." (even though it's just a few posts above yours)

According to Wikipedia, its "non-belief that exists through no fault of the non-believer."

Supplant that definition and I suspect you'll struggle to argue against the posted logic.

Let me do a real quick run down and move on to Jay.

1."Igorance not an argument for God"

No one argued that. Read what I say and what the guy said. He is just saying children are more prond to believe in a God than to believe in a natural event. You seem to be reading between the lines. He isn't arguing just like me that because children are more prone than God exist. He doesn't say that nor I. The point he was making based on experiments children are likely to believe in supernatural reasonings. "elementary and riddled with sophistry. " Really it was just you misunderstanding what he was saying. Your next sentence basically says what we saying. Don't jump the gun without first reading the whole article I posted and taking your time to analyzing what he trying to say. 

2."This type of argument would lead to all types of examples of absurdities such as god controls the wind and the tides and the weather, all of which we know is simply untrue due to our education"

Misses the point I was making. Which was babies are more prone to believe in a God than not. I don't why your over-analyzing things to such degrees. Where did I or him argue anything else? Again reading between the lines something that isn't there. Are you trying to create a straw man that I'm arguing that this proves God exist because babies are more to believe in a God? My point was people are not born resistanting God. That was it.

"It is no coincidence that arguments from ignorance are commonplay with the religious."

You use a generalization of a group (with an ad horienem/hoc at that) a form of ignorance to than say religious people use ignorance as commonplay? You do realize your contradicting yourself? That would be like saying because many uneducated atheist don't do scholarly research on the bible and say that Jesus didn't exist that atheist use ignorance as commonplay. Stop with the kindergarten arguments.  There are highly intelligent Christian who wrote books and peer-review papers on such topics. Why don't try making these guys look ignorant: (francis collins, John Lennox, William L. Craig,Richard Swineburne,etc.)  I'm a hundred percent sure you couldn't even hold a candle for them when comes to knowledge. Stop trying to act aggressively superior when your not at all. Just so you know,just because people are born more to believe God than natural event doesn't mean all religious just believe because of a factor like that. Many become because of arguments and experiences. 

"By the way, apparently you missed Jay's clarification on "non-resistently unaware." (even though it's just a few posts above yours)

According to Wikipedia, its "non-belief that exists through no fault of the non-believer."

Supplant that definition and I suspect you'll struggle to argue against the posted logic."

I responded to the first post and left. I don't bother with Wikipedia because how horrible it is and is considered junk by every college I went to. I avoid it like most should.

(Haven't read Jay response yet. Will do soon and if he corrected my misunderstanding than I will respond to it.)