God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless."
--"For believers, it may seem threatening to think that the mind has been shaped to believe in gods, since the actual existence of the divine may then seem less likely."
"Is religion hardwired?"
Obviously there are skeptics everywhere on every part of this... but it shows that your assertions are far from indisputable fact.
Your second link is nothing more than a commentary on the God Gene, addressed above.
Your third link is a collection of criticisms of the idea that people are born believing in a god, and doesn't support your position at all. Did you read it?
Here's some of the writer's observations:
"...but secular studies of religious belief have been bogged down by the fact that none of these theories are obviously testable by science. I have suggested several times on this site, though, that the “hardwired” theory is in principle testable: all you have to do is bring up children in an environment where they’re completely free of religious knowledge or influence, and see if they spontaneously come to conceive of (and maybe worship) a God. Unfortunately, that’s impossible, because we can’t do experiments with humans. And there’s virtually nowhere that one can raise a child without some exposure to religion.But what I see here is not evidence against hardwiring, but an absence of any evidence.Later, however, the kids do become creationists, but that’s imputed to cultural or parental indoctrination:It goes on with the same pattern of observations, that being that nothing is cited, and that absence of evidence against natural-born religion is evidence for it...again, the most unscientific view possible. This site not only doesn't support your position, it tears it to shreds. All I can really do is thank you for bringing a site to my attention that supports my own position so perfectly.Likewise, where’s the evidence that their newfound creationism comes from absorbing it from their culture, rather than appearing spontaneously as a product of their genes at a later age? No reference is cited.
And as I've already said and which you've ignored: That atheists, agnostics, and philosophies that aren't especially theological exist are proof that people will take those patterns to arrive at conclusions or believe systems that aren't related to a god at all.
IMO, to claim knowledge of the non-existence of an entity is not logically possible and is a faith based claim, meaning a claim without or despite contradicting evidence.
I am an agnostic atheist, I don't know and I don't believe.
Who left the fridge open?