I have no idea which neural structure is responsible for religion, but that it is genetically determined can be deduced from the fact that all cultures, no matter how isolated, have some sort of deity and spiritual belief (and with rather similar structures). Richard Dawkins and Matthew Alper have both presented the hypothesis, although Dawkins myopically attributes religion to a misfiring neural mechanism, rather than its correct functioning.
Infancy.
I have no idea which neural structure is responsible for religion, but that it is genetically determined can be deduced from the fact that all cultures, no matter how isolated, have some sort of deity and spiritual belief (and with rather similar structures). Richard Dawkins and Matthew Alper have both presented the hypothesis, although Dawkins myopically attributes religion to a misfiring neural mechanism, rather than its correct functioning.
I'm assuming you're referring to children too young to be capable of taking a position on the issue. I wouldn't say the lack of capacity to believe implies disbelief. You could equally well atribute a number of other philosophical outlooks to infancy - nihilism, for instance, on the grounds that they do not actively believe in anything in particular.
Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1][...] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]
Not a big fan of false hope, but it's better than no hope lol
It is?
In which neuroanatomical substructure does the religious principle reside again?
Athiesm, as defined by wonkipoodia:
You are under the assumption that in order for one to be an Atheist, he must know of a god and must decidedly reject that entity.
Quote:
Atheism is commonly described as the position that there are no deities.[1][...] A broader meaning is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3]
Incorrect.
There are plenty of real and substantive reasons to carry hope.
Such as?
Or in a situation that could be eased (but not repaired) with false hope, one could likewise come to peace with the circumstances without deciet of the reality.
Its highly doubtful that most people could "come to peace" with a loved one (including themselves) dying; they can eventually numb themselves to the resulting anguish and despair, and thereby move on, but that provides less aggregate utility (generally speaking), than engaging in the type of false hope I mentioned earlier.
Mr Wonky Poodle, please don't prove your wonkerishness by posting questionable definitions of irrelevant abstract nouns in order to shore up an already weak ideological point. The child may be in a state of non-belief, but this does not make the child an atheist by any reasonable and generally accepted current definition. If you're having trouble with this concept, try finding a proper dictionary, and look up the word "atheist", which whether you like it or not defines a person who has made an active choice not to believe.
Further, it's purposeless attributing a positive significance to simple incapacity. You might equally well say that all flies are atheists, or all planets are atheists, as they do not have (because they are not capable of posessing) religious faith, just as a baby is not, at least so far as we know.
Further, it's purposeless attributing a positive significance to simple incapacity. You might equally well say that all flies are atheists, or all planets are atheists, as they do not have (because they are not capable of posessing) religious faith, just as a baby is not, at least so far as we know.
It is possible to accept the reality of life and death without emotionally hardening oneself to an insensitive state. It may not be easy, but I never claimed it would be.