It could be argued that Atheism can be rooted in a similar way, that our
root of logic is "God cannot exist" and vehemently deny anything that
doesn't fit. However, this may not be how we work.

To me, pure logic doesn't have a central point (or points), core arguments
where all answers eminate from. Because that central point is a weakness
(and if disproven, becomes nothing more than fantasy)

Let us look at some models.

Christian Logic:

Christian Logic has two central arguments, "God (Jehovah) must exist" and
"The Bible is completely factual".

For a long time, this has been thought of
a steady base, alas these foundations have become weaker at an exponential
rate over time. Your core argument must be as solid as a rock, and by that
we don't mean skill in apologetics, it means the argument is able to defend
itself. To me, this does not appear to be a very sound type of logic.

Now, we have similar scenarios for other religions, particularly Islam and
Judaism, as these have similar roots.

It could be argued that Atheism can be rooted in a similar way, that our
root of logic is "God cannot exist" and vehemently deny anything that
doesn't fit. However, this may not be how we work.

As soon as we are born, most of us cry. It's the cold after being in our
mother's womb and the stress on us of being born. We're sensing the world
and we haven't even opened our eyes yet. We may be using our instincts to
call for help and protection, but still that reaction has a logical root.

This one is "Everything we sense is real.", not necessarily real as it is
what you think it is (For example if you play a sound file of a cow mooing,
it doesn't mean that there is a cow nearby, but you could fool someone), but
importantly, it is something on which to base a reaction on. Trust in our
sensory organs is built in from the first second of life.

"Everything we sense is real" doesn't mean that we aren't trapped in a
Matrix-type situation (and we probably are not), but if we were, everything
we would sense is still something, whether simulated or not and we do not
necessarily need to understand it to do something with that information.

Of course, this is true in the animal world also, which even though they
aren't as intelligent as us, and like babies also, are all atheists. Yes, if
you touch the atheist caterpillar, it will attempt to defend itself. The
atheist dog will bark at the television. If an atheist cat spots an atheist
mouse, it will chase it.

We're generally open-minded people, but I think this helps explain the
difference for some between "Believing that there is no God" and "Not
believing in God".

Unfortunately for young children, there is an instinct which explains how
easy it is for them to be entered into religion, and that is the "Trust your
peers" instinct. Children often believe what is told to them by adults as
truth, basically children are gulliable, because they want to learn, but are
unsure as to where to learn from, ie why we tell them to not talk to
strangers. This gets switched off when puberty kicks in, so maybe all
children should receive a secular upbringing until the age of 13 by law.

To me, pure logic doesn't have a central point (or points), core arguments
where all answers eminate from. Because that central point is a weakness
(and if disproven, becomes nothing more than fantasy)

Let us look at some models.

Christian Logic:

Christian Logic has two central arguments, "God (Jehovah) must exist" and
"The Bible is completely factual". For a long time, this has been thought of

a steady base, alas these foundations have become weaker at an exponential
rate over time. Your core argument must be as solid as a rock, and by that
we don't mean skill in apologetics, it means the argument is able to defend
itself. To me, this does not appear to be a very sound type of logic.

Now, we have similar scenarios for other religions, particularly Islam and
Judaism, as these have similar roots.

It could be argued that Atheism can be rooted in a similar way, that our
root of logic is "God cannot exist" and vehemently deny anything that
doesn't fit. However, this may not be how we work.

As soon as we are born, most of us cry. It's the cold after being in our
mother's womb and the stress on us of being born. We're sensing the world
and we haven't even opened our eyes yet. We may be using our instincts to
call for help and protection, but still that reaction has a logical root.

This one is "Everything we sense is real.", not necessarily real as it is
what you think it is (For example if you play a sound file of a cow mooing,
it doesn't mean that there is a cow nearby, but you could fool someone), but
importantly, it is something on which to base a reaction on. Trust in our
sensory organs is built in from the first second of life.

"Everything we sense is real" doesn't mean that we aren't trapped in a
Matrix-type situation (and we probably are not), but if we were, everything
we would sense is still something, whether simulated or not and we do not
necessarily need to understand it to do something with that information.

Of course, this is true in the animal world also, which even though they
aren't as intelligent as us, and like babies also, are all atheists. Yes, if
you touch the atheist caterpillar, it will attempt to defend itself. The
atheist dog will bark at the television. If an atheist cat spots an atheist
mouse, it will chase it.

We're generally open-minded people, but I think this helps explain the
difference for some between "Believing that there is no God" and "Not
believing in God".

Unfortunately for young children, there is an instinct which explains how
easy it is for them to be entered into religion, and that is the "Trust your
peers" instinct. Children often believe what is told to them by adults as
truth, basically children are gulliable, because they want to learn, but are
unsure as to where to learn from, ie why we tell them to not talk to
strangers. This gets switched off when puberty kicks in, so maybe all
children should receive a secular upbringing until the age of 13 by law.

To me, pure logic doesn't have a central point (or points), core arguments
where all answers eminate from. Because that central point is a weakness
(and if disproven, becomes nothing more than fantasy)

Let us look at some models.

Christian Logic:

Christian Logic has two central arguments, "God (Jehovah) must exist" and
"The Bible is completely factual". For a long time, this has been thought of
a steady base, alas these foundations have become weaker at an exponential
rate over time. Your core argument must be as solid as a rock, and by that
we don't mean skill in apologetics, it means the argument is able to defend
itself. To me, this does not appear to be a very sound type of logic.

Now, we have similar scenarios for other religions, particularly Islam and
Judaism, as these have similar roots.

It could be argued that Atheism can be rooted in a similar way, that our
root of logic is "God cannot exist" and vehemently deny anything that
doesn't fit. However, this may not be how we work.

As soon as we are born, most of us cry. It's the cold after being in our
mother's womb and the stress on us of being born. We're sensing the world
and we haven't even opened our eyes yet. We may be using our instincts to
call for help and protection, but still that reaction has a logical root.

This one is "Everything we sense is real.", not necessarily real as it is
what you think it is (For example if you play a sound file of a cow mooing,
it doesn't mean that there is a cow nearby, but you could fool someone), but
importantly, it is something on which to base a reaction on. Trust in our
sensory organs is built in from the first second of life.

"Everything we sense is real" doesn't mean that we aren't trapped in a
Matrix-type situation (and we probably are not), but if we were, everything
we would sense is still something, whether simulated or not and we do not
necessarily need to understand it to do something with that information.

Of course, this is true in the animal world also, which even though they
aren't as intelligent as us, and like babies also, are all atheists. Yes, if
you touch the atheist caterpillar, it will attempt to defend itself. The
atheist dog will bark at the television. If an atheist cat spots an atheist
mouse, it will chase it.

We're generally open-minded people, but I think this helps explain the
difference for some between "Believing that there is no God" and "Not
believing in God".

Unfortunately for young children, there is an instinct which explains how
easy it is for them to be entered into religion, and that is the "Trust your
peers" instinct. Children often believe what is told to them by adults as
truth, basically children are gulliable, because they want to learn, but are
unsure as to where to learn from, ie why we tell them to not talk to
strangers. This gets switched off when puberty kicks in, so maybe all
children should receive a secular upbringing until the age of 13 by law.

From my own perspective since religion is riddled with lies and

It could be argued that Atheism can be rooted in a similar way, that our
root of logic is "God cannot exist" and vehemently deny anything that
doesn't fit. However, this may not be how we work.