LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksJust opening and discussion.
You don't choose to become an atheist, either you are an atheist or you come back from religion.
You are borne atheist.
December 8th, 2007, 04:42 AM
Just opening and discussion.
You don't choose to become an atheist, either you are an atheist or you come back from religion.
You are borne atheist.
December 8th, 2007, 11:05 AM
No, you're not. That would be the same as saying one is born a 'Democrat' or a 'Republican'Originally Posted by Pikkhaud
It's not possible for newborns or even toddlers to be theist or atheist as they do not have the cognitive reasoning skills to understand those concepts.
December 8th, 2007, 11:11 AM
For once we are on the same page (Q), would that mean the same pond or ocean? :wink:.No, you're not. That would be the same as saying one is born a 'Democrat' or a 'Republican'
It's not possible for newborns or even toddlers to be theist or atheist as they do not have the cognitive reasoning skills to understand those concepts.
December 8th, 2007, 11:52 AM
Or, maybe you're just starting to think about the theist condition and position. Apply further those critical thinking skills to the subjects of biology and cosmology and you may very well break the shackles of your childhood indoctrination. :wink:
Please excuse the long paste... I'm unclear of the rules: whether I'm supposed to supply a link or paste the relevant parts. So I've gone with the latter.
The frontal lobe, the area right behind our foreheads, helps us focus our attention in prayer and meditation.
The parietal lobe, located near the backs of our skulls, is the seat of our sensory information. Newberg says it's involved in that feeling of becoming part of something greater than oneself.
The limbic system, nestled deep in the center, regulates our emotions and is responsible for feelings of awe and joy.
Newberg calls religion the great equalizer and points out that similar areas of the brain are affected during prayer and meditation. Newberg suggests that these brain scans may provide proof that our brains are built to believe in God. He says there may be universal features of the human mind that actually make it easier for us to believe in a higher power.
Interestingly enough, devout believers and atheists alike point to the brain scans as proof of their own ideas.
Some nuns and other believers champion the brain scans as proof of an innate, physical conduit between human beings and God. According to them, it would only make sense that God would give humans a way to communicate with the Almighty through their brain functions.
Some atheists saw these brain scans as proof that the emotions attached to religion and God are nothing more than manifestations of brain circuitry.
...
Instead of viewing religion and spirituality as an innate quality hardwired by God in the human brain, he sees religion as a mere byproduct of evolution and Darwinian adaptation.
December 8th, 2007, 01:24 PM
I disagree, i believe we are born athiest, it just depends on your definition of athiesm.No, you're not. That would be the same as saying one is born a 'Democrat' or a 'Republican'
It's not possible for newborns or even toddlers to be theist or atheist as they do not have the cognitive reasoning skills to understand those concepts.
If you see athiesm as the absense of belief in deities then everyone is born an athiest, if you believe that athiesm rejects thiesm then you may have a point to argue on the specifics
We are born with no concept of god, which is non-thiesm,which is turn could be called athiesm
Not believing in god is our default setting, its only with the corruption of man that thiesm exist
December 8th, 2007, 01:37 PM
New-borns have an absence of belief. Period. They are unable to even comprehend the concept of belief. So, it matters not if atheism rejects theism or is absent of theism, the child cannot be born either based on the simple premise of understanding any of those concepts.
December 8th, 2007, 02:09 PM
The fact is, if a child has no concept of religion, they are absent of it and therefore non-thiest aka athiest(by some definitions) :PNew-borns have an absence of belief. Period. They are unable to even comprehend the concept of belief. So, it matters not if atheism rejects theism or is absent of theism, the child cannot be born either based on the simple premise of understanding any of those concepts.
Q
unfortunately you have it wrong your confusing Antitheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism with atheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism every child on this planet is born without God, "Atheist"
December 8th, 2007, 03:43 PM
By some definitions, atheism is a lack of belief in theism, but that would necessitate the fact that the concepts of beliefs and theism are understood, in other words, a conscious effort must be made by the individual to understand they lack the belief or deny the belief.
December 8th, 2007, 04:54 PM
By some definitions, atheism is a lack of belief in theism, but that would necessitate the fact that the concepts of beliefs and theism are understood, in other words, a conscious effort must be made by the individual to understand they lack the belief or deny the belief.
Lack of belief is like lack of knowledge, it is something unknown to you(like amelanism in animals, thats purely means lacking that pigmentation, not removing of it), therefore it still applies, as with the comment above antitheism is to oppose something and take a consious effort to do so, atheism is just lacking that belief, which is correct from birth
Think about what the "a" part means.......lack of, simple as that :-D
December 8th, 2007, 05:10 PM
Atheism is comparable to being ignorant?
Atheism is a lack of understanding?
Atheism is like a genetic disorder?
Oh, my do you have psychic skills like mind reading. The point I wanted to ephazise later on this topic to burn those who ment a babies was religious.
No-one's saying babies are born religious. What I personally am saying, is that a baby is born dumb as a rock. It can't move. It urinates everywhere and it will wallow in its own faeces if left unattended.
December 8th, 2007, 05:42 PM
I would tend to totally agree with you, up to the point of atheism from birth.
For children, is it actually a lack of beliefs of gods? Do they understand the concepts and differentiations between nature and the supernatural? Can they understand and accept concepts of scientific discoveries on biology and cosmology and then further accept or decline those same concepts from theist scripture?
Hardly.
So, perhaps it's not so much the same concepts of natural vs supernatural, creationism vs evolution, but instead is the very concept of belief, and specifically belief in anything we as adults take for granted.
They aren't so much atheist as they are abeliefist or perhaps aconceptualists. :wink:
well I used to be on this forum(don't remember the name) but anyhow there were a lots of judeo-christian fudamentalists there and I had my hopes up for alike here but I guess not.No-one's saying babies are born religious. What I personally am saying, is that a baby is born dumb as a rock. It can't move. It urinates everywhere and it will wallow in its own faeces if left unattended.
didn't you agree that babies were born without belief,No-one's saying babies are born religious. What I personally am saying, is that a baby is born dumb as a rock. It can't move. It urinates everywhere and it will wallow in its own faeces if left unattended.so you must agree that they are technically atheist, as the technical term is without belief in god and they certainly fit that profile even if they are completely without any kind of conceptual knowledge, it is really that simple.
it is infantile to try to make more of it, or try to redefine a word just to suit your own beliefs.
A=without, theos=god "godless" the word does not just mean severing relations with god or denying gods, it literally does mean godless, without god, which is what babies are.
no two ways about it.
Don't assume I have this belief you're talking about.it is infantile to try to make more of it, or try to redefine a word just to suit your own beliefs.
I am agreeing that they're born without beliefs. I don't believe I've said anywhere that babies were born with beliefs. I believe, in fact, that what I said was:didn't you agree that babies were born without belief,
Which I then followed up with this:No-one's saying babies are born religious.
If you really want folk to associate your lack of spiritual beliefs, to the extremely visual image of a baby covered in its own excrement, be my guest.What I personally am saying, is that a baby is born dumb as a rock. It can't move. It urinates everywhere and it will wallow in its own faeces if left unattended.
Personally, I think atheists can put up a far better argument than comparing themselves to babies.
Have you read that atheists compare them selves to babies, no you asumed.
We or atleast I don't compare my self to a baby I just recon that a babies has the potential to be comeing a huge piece in human tecnologi, befor it is indoctornated with filth.
Oh, yeah one more thing what is your beliefs anyway?
I'm not going to try and find out how a baby percieves the world, but trying to label it 'atheist' or 'theist' or whatever is pointless in my mind. Saying a child is born atheist is probably right, but it is irrelevant. A baby is a baby.
well a baby is a baby and they are dumb, but you see if the indoctornation of babies could be stoped or atleast reduced, humanity would have goten a long way.
And this is where it gets interessting cause if a baby was a theist when it was borne it would not be wrong too rise it in the "NAME of god", but since it is atheist in the sense of being godless. It is wrong to force something as big as a religion upon it.
Chiildren/babies Should be informed about it but not forced to belive it as it is done in many homes to day.
December 8th, 2007, 07:38 PM
Atheism is comparable to being ignorant?
Atheism is a lack of understanding?
Atheism is like a genetic disorder?
haha very funny, i meant lacking theism is like lacking specific knowledge when your a child,eg a child born is athiestic is the same as its born a-quantum physics
same with the others, the "a" means lacking not opposing something :wink:
December 8th, 2007, 07:43 PM
No again you mis-read what athiesm is, atheism is lack of a theism, thats irrospective of understanding, they possess no theism therefore they are atheists, again as i said before what your talking about is antitheismI would tend to totally agree with you, up to the point of atheism from birth.
For children, is it actually a lack of beliefs of gods? Do they understand the concepts and differentiations between nature and the supernatural? Can they understand and accept concepts of scientific discoveries on biology and cosmology and then further accept or decline those same concepts from theist scripture?
Hardly.
So, perhaps it's not so much the same concepts of natural vs supernatural, creationism vs evolution, but instead is the very concept of belief, and specifically belief in anything we as adults take for granted.
They aren't so much atheist as they are abeliefist or perhaps aconceptualists. :wink:
December 8th, 2007, 07:58 PM
I've found the definitions of atheism to include the lack of belief in gods existence and the denial of gods existence. Antitheism is taking action against theism, which I didn't refer. There is a big difference in simply denying the existence of gods to that of taking action against an ideal.
When we talk about atheism and its definitions, whether they be a conscious decision to deny gods existence or to simply lack a belief in gods existence, we automatically assume the concepts of these beliefs are fully understood from all parties who took the time to understand them.If a child goes from birth through to death on a desert island alone, busy with no time to wonder or ponder, then they spend their whole lives in an atheistic state
Atheism does not mean one spends their entire life alone, hence not having heard about theism, and is atheist.
Well, you can't really determine what's right or wrong, when you're talking about someone else's child. My own moral system certainly wouldn't go down well in a conversative home.
A lot of parents feel they're doing what's best for their children by forcing them to go to church. Impressing moral values, giving them a sense of community, equipping them with a coping mechanism to deal with death.
I would say, though, that there are far healthier ways to teach a child these things, rather than by forcing religion on them. You can impress the concept of not harming others, for example, without religion.
Hypothetically (as I don't have children), I'd prefer not to have the hypothetical child introduced to religion until the hypothetical child is old enough to (hypothetically) make a decision.
If this hypothetical child took an interest in that sort of thing, I'd prefer to introduce this child (I've tired of typing 'hypothetically'. Damn it, I just did it again.) to various religion and explain the pitfalls of each.
My main concern is that I wouldn't want my child forming moral values which have their base in religion. The morality of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic religions, from my subjective viewpoint, can be very questionable.
I can honestly say that I am agreed with you, but what I ment was that many of the so called christian(and many other religions for that sake) values prevents scientific research. And that is what I want to stop.
December 10th, 2007, 10:37 AM
most definitely!
Religion is a learnt thing, Ie an unnatural state of being.
Atheism is natural, it is the default state.
December 10th, 2007, 11:34 AM
Please demonstrate this with evidence, or appropriate research citations. Alternatively concede that it is merely an opinion.
I will take a guess and assume you are referring to the ethical opposition of some people, mostly religious, to the use of aborted fetuses for medical research. I will also assume you yourself oppose some medical research on grounds of ethics. Perhaps such research as described here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
Please explain why your ethics are more deserving of respect than the ethics of religious people, to the extent their values should be "stopped" but yours should not.
well, I do believe that dr Josef Mengele was infact a very psycho man, but many things that he did we have lernt something from.
Ex, he loved on one egged twins (i am not sure if that is the wright thing to wright , but I hope you get what I mean), but due to the fact that he experimented with it we lernt that twins do have somesort for conection.
And I am talking about genetic research and gen manipulation.
Explonation: I simply think it is much easier for a parent to have a perfectly healthy baby.
We can filter out fetuses with many different illneses without abort.
and don't you think it is easier to rais a child without downs syndrom than one with.
We can take that cromosom and remove it and the baby should be born without downs syndrome, we don't know that yet because it is aparently etically wrong.
And children with illnesses like this is a big expens for society.
the trouble is that any normal human baby is a natural sponge, and will absorb the lessons from its surroundings, it just can't help it - indoctrination guaranteed
some people unlearn this indoctrination, others don't - why, i haven't the foggiest
Maybe for the same reasons that some people are more gullable than others,easily led i suppose :wink:the trouble is that any normal human baby is a natural sponge, and will absorb the lessons from its surroundings, it just can't help it - indoctrination guaranteed
some people unlearn this indoctrination, others don't - why, i haven't the foggiest
December 10th, 2007, 04:41 PM
I'm a little puzzled, in regard to your question, are you suggesting that babies are born with a belief in a god/gods, or like me do you feel they lack belief in god/gods.Please demonstrate this with evidence,
religion is not innate, belief in god is not innate.
it is blatently obvious, what the default natural state is.
but I will take what you've said in hand, do some research and get back to you with an answer asap, even though I think the answers obvious.
so if atheism is supposed to be the default mode for human beings, where and when did religion achieve its predominance ?
Dude. Tell me you didn't just defend Dr. Mengele's experiments. Because I thought all that Nazi doctrine was caused by religion and everything would be sweetness, light and happiness when everybody was an atheist.
when the gullible, the weak willed, the infant, all accepted what they were told as truth, by the story teller who brainwashed himself, how many times have you heard someone tell you they had seen a ghost. they are so absolute sure they had, they've convinced themselves.
then they relate that story to somebody else who is gullible, or easily persuaded, and it just goes on and on, thus a religion is born.
but by definition atheism is the default state, without god/godless. adults who have deprogramed themselves from religion, are returning to the default state, they become godless/without god. The natural state of the human beings from day one.
i'd say you just made a great case for gullibility being the default state
Maybe gullibility is just a genetic state in certain breding lines :wink:
fortunately not everyone is gullible, therefore, it cannot be the default state, but everyone is born without god/godless.
Not as expensive for global society as having G.W.Bush as President of the US. Would you therefore recommend that all Bush children be terminated in the first trimester? Would you like us to euthenase the expensive to maintain Steven Hawking? Where would you suggest we stop? Should we move on to remove individuals who cannot be bothered to spell check their posts? Will you turn yourself in voluntarily?
medical experiments for the lot of them !
It's not my fult that more than 51 % of the us' voteing innhabithants are plain stupid. And no not because their linage no one can blame them.Not as expensive for global society as having G.W.Bush as President of the US. Would you therefore recommend that all Bush children be terminated in the first trimester? Would you like us to euthenase the expensive to maintain Steven Hawking? Where would you suggest we stop? Should we move on to remove individuals who cannot be bothered to spell check their posts? Will you turn yourself in voluntarily?
Steven Hawking, briliant man, but don't you think he would be happy to walk, If it wasn't to tabo to do reseach on many forms of gen manipulation, we could make it happen and many others can be cured,
cannot be bothered to spell check their posts. well in my appinion that's just lazyness. Yes I would, I have dyslecsia and if a scientist said he could take that away, I'd give it a shot.
btw I didn't talk about removing individuals, just manipulating genes.
Pikkhaud,
What research do you want done, what laws in which countries are preventing it from getting done, and why do you blame it on religion? I get the distinct impression you are bitching just for the sake of bitching and don't even know what you are bitching about.
This is agreable. I'd say that crazy people with crazy ideas way back in time managed to frighten people enough to believe in what they said, or something similar, though I'm still not convinced that atheism is a default state. A baby believes whatever their parents tell them, but they aren't born atheists. They aren't born to not believe in a God, so they really can't be called atheist or anything else like that. They are what they're taught to be. Even though a baby grows up rejecting religion doesn't mean they were born rejecting it. That wouldn't make much sense. As I said, a baby is a baby, right?when the gullible, the weak willed, the infant, all accepted what they were told as truth, by the story teller who brainwashed himself, how many times have you heard someone tell you they had seen a ghost. they are so absolute sure they had, they've convinced themselves.
then they relate that story to somebody else who is gullible, or easily persuaded, and it just goes on and on, thus a religion is born.
but by definition atheism is the default state, without god/godless. adults who have deprogramed themselves from religion, are returning to the default state, they become godless/without god. The natural state of the human beings from day one.
I assume he's talking about his own country.
I don't know if there are specific laws prohibiting research in certain areas, but the Norwegian state and church are still tied together. This is what the big controversy is about in Norway.
I doubt these things are illegal per se, but I'd certainly believe it would be impossible (at least very difficult) to get finance on projects which might be upsetting to the Church.
(either that, or Pikkaud's a metalhead. Never known a Norwegian metalhead who didn't hate Christians)
I'm a metalhead
Anyway... In Norway people are pretty much in agrement that church and state should be separated, BUT. KRF, a political party is against some scientific research like, stem cell research (I'm not 100% sure about that though), gene manipulation and anything that's "unethical" or something. That's what I know anyways... :?
And atheists are not against anything unethical, I suppose? Well if babies are born without ethics I guess amorality is the default state, now isn't it? So, nobody should teach morals to their children until they are old enough to decide what morals are the right ones.
People should be allowed to make own choices (gene manipulation).And atheists are not against anything unethical, I suppose? Well if babies are born without ethics I guess amorality is the default state, now isn't it? So, nobody should teach morals to their children until they are old enough to decide what morals are the right ones.
Research which doesn't hurt anything/(one) should be allowed. All stem cell research needs is a fetus about 6 days old if I'm not mistaking. At that time the fetus haven't developed anything, it isn't even human. It can feel no pain or anything.
These things are not unethical in my mind. That's why I used " in unethical: "unethical"
Okay, that's your opinion, and it's a fine opinion. Is it the official atheist opinion? Where can I go look that up?
Don't confuse me with one of the angry atheists Harold
I never said it was the official atheist opinion, I didn't even indicate that. :?
we athiests dont subscribe to the same good/bad book that monothiests do, hence the famous herding cats statement :-DOkay, that's your opinion, and it's a fine opinion. Is it the official atheist opinion? Where can I go look that up?
That makes no sense. Simply because someone ISN'T something, doesn't mean they are the opposite. Babies are born neither moral or immoral. They are a blank slate.
Just running on bios :wink:That makes no sense. Simply because someone ISN'T something, doesn't mean they are the opposite. Babies are born neither moral or immoral. They are a blank slate.
I said amoral, not immoral.That makes no sense. Simply because someone ISN'T something, doesn't mean they are the opposite. Babies are born neither moral or immoral. They are a blank slate.
well I wouldn't say I'm a metalhead, I listen to many typs of music, included metal.
Well, there was this case, About a little boy(memhet or something) that had some sort of illness, can't remember what. and all they had to do was to get some stemcells from a fetus that was genaricly similar to memhet, but since a fetus is a human being(in norway at least) this couldn't be done and as I recall memhet died 7 years old. Think about that.
That's not exactly what happened. I hadn't heard of this case but what I found out was, the kid was born with a genetic defect and needed a bone marrow transplant. His parents wanted to conceive another baby to produce the marrow, but to do that they had to fertilize a bunch of eggs and screen them to find one with the proper tissue compatibility and without the genetic disease, then pick the right one to implant, killing the rest.
That probably isn't correct either. The baby in question would still have to be aware of morals in order to be amoral.
Agreed. I was trying to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that atheism is the default state, which others, not you, were claiming.That probably isn't correct either. The baby in question would still have to be aware of morals in order to be amoral.
Agreed. I was trying to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that atheism is the default state, which others, not you, were claiming.That probably isn't correct either. The baby in question would still have to be aware of morals in order to be amoral.
would you prefer non-theists? or maybe those not brainwashed yet?, possibly, easy targets?, captive audience?
Nobody is saying the babies aren't blank slates, but they are by default Atheist.Agreed. I was trying to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that atheism is the default state, which others, not you, were claiming.That probably isn't correct either. The baby in question would still have to be aware of morals in order to be amoral.
the "A" changes the meaning of the word, to "without X"
If someone is concerned with the principles of right and wrong(ethical), they are Moral.
If someone is not concerned with the principles of right and wrong(unethical) they are Amoral.
If they are indifferent to questions of right or wrong; without Moral quality; neither Moral nor Immoral, they are by default Amoral.
If something has Symmetry, it is Symmetrical.
If something has no Symmetry, it is Asymmetrical.
If something is neither Symmetrical or Asymmetrical, it is by default naturally Asymmetyrical as it has no Symmetry.
If a persons with god, he's Theist.
If a persons without god he's Atheist.
If he is neither with or without, he is by default naturally without, as he most definitely is not with. So what shall we call him, if not Atheist (without god).
Unless of course you have a complete new word for what babies are.
Pavlos and Caveman
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. If babies are by default atheist then they are also by default amoral, since theism and morality are taught to them as they grow. Is amorality a good thing for people for their whole lives, or is it better to teach them morals? Should their moral training be deferred until after their age of consent?
Let's not quibble about definitions; the whole point of this thread was to try to prove that atheism is more natural, therefore somehow preferred. In that, you have failed.
I agree completely. Indeed, it is specious to argue that religion is only successful because of indoctrination by parenst and society. There is clearly a large segment of humanity are drawn to the idea that there is 'something greater than them', which most choose to call God. It does not matter whethere or not they are right, this is strong human tendency. As such it is natural, and so we can rightly say that theism - at least for many - is natural and atheism is unnatural.
I still believe athiesm is the default state, similarly with the majority of morals to, A-moral is a possibility, i think a certain few morals are inbuilt as self preservation, theft and coveting of possessions and wives aren't two of them, of course morals are(as a whole) taught, some by sitting down and teaching, others by observations as growing
so yeah, religion and many morals are not default settings, and quite possibly the amoral could be also true also
exactly, as i said in my last post, they are indifferent to right or wrong.from their very first moment babies have to learn a kind of morality, it's how we humans socialise/are accepted, but religion is not taught at all it is enforced.(to babies/infants)no of course not, but we learn how to behave from the beginning.you being extremely stupid here, to do this you would have to keep the child/person in complete solitary confinement, no human contact or contact with social animals, for a human to be end up complete without morals. You would have to stop a social animal being social, an impossiblity.and it succeed admirably.to an indoctrinated person, it would not be the preferred state, but thats because the haven't shed the shackles of religion. But to the person who has, it is most definitely the preferred position. it takes us back to our roots.sorry cant agree here, most definitely a success.
have we suddenly changed the meaning of natural, did the world decide to change it and not tell anybody but you.I agree completely. Indeed, it is specious to argue that religion is only successful because of indoctrination by parenst and society. There is clearly a large segment of humanity are drawn to the idea that there is 'something greater than them', which most choose to call God. It does not matter whethere or not they are right, this is strong human tendency. As such it is natural, and so we can rightly say that theism - at least for many - is natural and atheism is unnatural.
having an appeal to popularity(common fallacy) and being natural are miles apart.
as was said earlier babies are a blank slate, where is this strong human tendency? lol
Essentially what you're saying then is 'i'm right and anyone who disagrees is wrong because i'm always right'. You've just admitted that the 'preferred position' is completely subjective.
Jeremyan logical fallacy alert : just because something is more natural doesn't necessarily imply that it should be preferred
How can you tell the difference between teaching and enforcing?Yet you want religious people to raise their kids as atheists, right?you being extremely stupid here, to do this you would have to keep the child/person in complete solitary confinement, no human contact or contact with social animals, for a human to be end up complete without morals. You would have to stop a social animal being social, an impossiblity.
If we examine the humanity from pre-history through to the present day we note that most people in most times have adopted theistic beliefs of one kind or another.
We also note that over the same period most people in most times have gathered together in societies of a score ore more persons.
We rightly say that formation of multi-person societies appears to be a natural behaviour of homo sapiens. It is equally true to say that a acquiring theistic beliefs appears to be a natural tendency of man.
If it were not natural we would expect to see several cultures, at different times in the past, that were atheist in character. We do not, to the best of my knowledge see any. Perhaps you will identify some of these for us and thereby justify your dismissive remarks.
Well the only God to be consistently worshipped throughout human history is God of the Gaps. It made a lot more sense when our scientific knowledge was minimal to posit gods as explanations for many things - rivers, mountains, the sun, and so on. From the moment we became intelligent enough to conceptualize gods we've been conditioned to believe in them.I agree completely. Indeed, it is specious to argue that religion is only successful because of indoctrination by parenst and society. There is clearly a large segment of humanity are drawn to the idea that there is 'something greater than them', which most choose to call God. It does not matter whethere or not they are right, this is strong human tendency. As such it is natural, and so we can rightly say that theism - at least for many - is natural and atheism is unnatural.
Without God of the Gaps, would religious belief have been so consistent through history? Without him, would we TODAY be as prone to religious belief as we are? I am not so sure. Even today in the era of scientific discovery we see the supposedly "faithful" desperately clinging to God of the Gaps through their attacks on evolution, support of ID and the incessant "What caused the Big Bang. HAD TO BE GOD". God of the Gaps is getting a hell of a lot smaller.
Besides, in my eyes the argument isn't only "Atheism is the default belief" but it has an additional qualifier - "Atheism is the default belief if you hold God to the same standard you hold every other supernatural entity"
Where is the justification in holding God to a lesser standard of evidence than ghosts, goblins and unicorns? God of the Gaps isn't good enough. "It makes me feel better" isn't good enough. Argumentum ad populum isn't good enough.
EDIT: And just to tie it a little more directly to the thread's topic, I think people are getting a little too stuck on the "baby" issue. Just advance the people we're talking about to the age when they are first introduced to the concept of God - or use a fully grown adult who by some miracle has never been exposed to the concept of God. What is the default belief at THAT point when you first tell them about God? At THAT point unless there's some reason to give God special status unlike every other supernatural entity for which there is no evidence, then I have a hard time believing that our individual's "default state" is immediate belief.
A fallacy on whose part? It was Pikkhaud who wrote this:Jeremyan logical fallacy alert : just because something is more natural doesn't necessarily imply that it should be preferred
And this is where it gets interessting cause if a baby was a theist when it was borne it would not be wrong too rise it in the "NAME of god", but since it is atheist in the sense of being godless. It is wrong to force something as big as a religion upon it.
There is a difference between:
You shall be a christian and all else is wrong, you will go to hell if you don't belive in God, Jesus Christ and The holy spirit.
and
We have many different views on life one of the is the judeo-christian belief which is a religion that bekives that one God created the universe and all in it, the doctrin in this religion is the Holy Bible.
Okay, so here is how you would "teach" morals to your kids without "enforcing"
"Well, Tommy, I see you have stolen Billy's bicycle. That is quite acceptable for some subcultures in this city, but I think you should know that there are some other subcultures where that behavior is not accepted. I will let you make up your own mind."
Well, first of all I have never said anything about moral(I have read the posts) and second Belief and moral is to different things.
But, here is how I would have said it:
Well, Tommy, I see you have stolen Billy's bicycle.
What that hell someone is going to get a bungeload of pain. You shouldn't do this. Bang Bang Bang. If you don't stop steeling I will beat the crap out of you. You dumbass, shutup when I'm beating you. If you don't do as I say you will end up dead.
and
oh, I see well You should know that the social standard about this subject thinks it is wrong and you should be punished for it, but there are pople who do this, but if they get busted they are thrown in jail. Now you can choose if you wanna be in jail or not.
You're missing one important piece here. The person in question must be AWARE and UNDERSTAND the principles behind morals in order for them to be with or without them. This requires a conscious effort by the individual.
Blank slates, a category babies fall under, do not qualify. Same with animals.
sorry, i should have made it clearer that i was merely pointing out the existence of a fallacy, not that you had made fallacy
I think that is fallacious. Theism was brought down long before that, in the time when Neanderthals (who had NO evidential theism) and early hominids roamed the earth. It was the hominids who began the practice of Shamanism which lead to our current regimes of cults. It was the hominids that first introduced Shamanism to the Neanderthals.
get you head out of the bible and look at it sensibly, please!.
Teaching morals and Enforcing religion, are completely different, morals are basic truths, whereas religion is just fantasy, I'd rather my children be taught the truth than lied too. We know if we harm or hurt some one there are consequence's, because of this evidence we know, morals are basic truths, so we teach them.
But not so with religion teaching something without any evidence is enforcing a belief, it has nothing to do with teaching.
why! I'm sure he posted up the dictionary definition of Amoral in the third line, so why!You're missing one important piece here. The person in question must be AWARE and UNDERSTAND the principles behind morals in order for them to be with or without them. This requires a conscious effort by the individual.
Blank slates, a category babies fall under, do not qualify. Same with animals.
if all the dictionaries quote it as indifference to right and wrong; without Moral quality; neither Moral nor Immoral, then he's right. babies are UNAWARE and DONT UNDERSTAND thus indifferent; without Moral quality; neither Moral nor Immoral, wouldn't you agree.
So therefore must be Amoral.
why do you think there's another meaning?
Totally agree, Religion is just another form of child abuse anywayget you head out of the bible and look at it sensibly, please!.
Teaching morals and Enforcing religion, are completely different, morals are basic truths, whereas religion is just fantasy, I'd rather my children be taught the truth than lied too. We know if we harm or hurt some one there are consequence's, because of this evidence we know, morals are basic truths, so we teach them.
But not so with religion teaching something without any evidence is enforcing a belief, it has nothing to do with teaching.
Why bring up the Bible? I haven't used that in any of my arguments. What are these basic truths and where are they written down? Would that include OmertĂ*, the Italian Mafia code of silence? How about the Thuggees, the cult in India before the 19th century where robbing and killing travelers was considered an honorable profession. Did they know about these basic truths?
you seem all to often to go of on a tangent,Why bring up the Bible? I haven't used that in any of my arguments. What are these basic truths and where are they written down? Would that include OmertĂ*, the Italian Mafia code of silence? How about the Thuggees, the cult in India before the 19th century where robbing and killing travelers was considered an honorable profession. Did they know about these basic truths?
the basic truth are the golden rule. it's that simple, whether a particular country, creed, or sect, have strange moral behavior is irrelevant, they have all learnt the golden rule.
I mentioned the bible, because I didn't want to say arse.
It's not going off on a tangent, it is the crux of the issue. There is no set of morals that magically drop out of the sky. You teach your kids your values, but you don't want to let somebody else teach their values. You are a busybody, pure and simple.
pavlos; One point I feel that should be made, which I feel would help your position here is that (I've highlighted the part)Nobody is saying the babies aren't blank slates, but they are by default Atheist.Agreed. I was trying to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that atheism is the default state, which others, not you, were claiming.That probably isn't correct either. The baby in question would still have to be aware of morals in order to be amoral.
the "A" changes the meaning of the word, to "without X"
If someone is concerned with the principles of right and wrong(ethical), they are Moral.
If someone is not concerned with the principles of right and wrong(unethical) they are Amoral.
If they are indifferent to questions of right or wrong; without Moral quality; neither Moral nor Immoral, they are by default Amoral.
If something has Symmetry, it is Symmetrical.
If something has no Symmetry, it is Asymmetrical.
If something is neither Symmetrical or Asymmetrical, it is by default naturally Asymmetyrical as it has no Symmetry.
If a persons with god, he's Theist.
If a persons without god he's Atheist.
If he is neither with or without, he is by default naturally without, as he most definitely is not with. So what shall we call him, if not Atheist (without god).
Unless of course you have a complete new word for what babies are.
"If someone is concerned with the principles of right and wrong(ethical), they are Moral.
If someone is not concerned with the principles of right and wrong(unethical) they are Immoral.
If they are indifferent to questions of right or wrong; without Moral quality; neither Moral nor Immoral, they are by default Amoral."
I think you know this, Amorality is not a choice it is what you simply are, you cannot become Amoral, but you can be Immoral.
Just a quick little lesson in the meaning of words.
immoral = bad
moral = good
amoral = neither good nor bad.
Miriam Webster
Main Entry: amor·al
Pronunciation: (")A-'mor-&l, (")a-, -'mär-
Function: adjective
Date: 1882
1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as such is completely amoral -- W. S. Thompson> b : lacking moral sensibility <infants are amoral>
2 : being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals <amoral customs>
The Holocaust was immoral.
Hiroshima was amoral.
the thread is being born atheist, which as I've said is the natural position. morals are an off topic issue.It's not going off on a tangent, it is the crux of the issue. There is no set of morals that magically drop out of the sky. You teach your kids your values, but you don't want to let somebody else teach their values. You are a busybody, pure and simple.
however having said that, we as humans have an innate moral sense we are born to be a social animal, and act accordingly, yes we do learn some morals, from our parents and teachers, but the golden rule is in us all, we can be brainwashed to follow any code, in this case morals become relative, because we are a social animals, we trust others to teach our children, but if we felt they were enforcing there beliefs or opinions, on our children we would soon stop it.
"Humans, he argues, are amoral and what guides them is not any sense of morality but an instinct for survival."
I have only briefly scanned this thread. It seems the argument is "are humans born athiest or theist" - I'm not sure you can ask such a question, a new born child can have no disposition to religion full stop. It's rather like asking whether an acorn is a table or a barn door, it is simply neither yet can grow and then be made into either. A baby is a baby neither theist nor atheist - there are more colours in this world than just black and white.
Agreed.
nobody has said babies are any different than what you say, but they are Atheist, in the literal sense. " Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. "
but "When defined more broadly, Atheism is the absence of belief in deities," this fits well with babies.
We know babies have no belief in deities, thus they must have an absence of belief in deities.
Babies have an absense of morality thus are Amoral.
They have no political affiliation, thus are Apolitical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
From the link YOU provided:nobody has said babies are any different than what you say, but they are Atheist, in the literal sense. " Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. "
but "When defined more broadly, Atheism is the absence of belief in deities," this fits well with babies.
We know babies have no belief in deities, thus they must have an absence of belief in deities.
Babies have an absense of morality thus are Amoral.
They have no political affiliation, thus are Apolitical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues."
yes fine but lets see the full quote shall we. Not just the bastardise version.From the link YOU provided:nobody has said babies are any different than what you say, but they are Atheist, in the literal sense. " Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods or rejects theism. "
but "When defined more broadly, Atheism is the absence of belief in deities," this fits well with babies.
We know babies have no belief in deities, thus they must have an absence of belief in deities.
Babies have an absense of morality thus are Amoral.
They have no political affiliation, thus are Apolitical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues."in it's entirety it compares the unacquainted man to the unacquainted child, pointed out by George H Smith (1979).As far back as 1772, d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God".[27] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."
so would you like to make another point.
I cant understand your stance here being's your such a strong atheist in the philosophical aspect, and not just the broader aspect.
Went through this thread from the beginning and had a couple of observations.
TvEye said:
So what? There are adults who do that and sell pictures of themselves doing it. Is this because they are still dumb as rocks or because they are perverts, or both? And what religion taught them this behavior?What I personally am saying, is that a baby is born dumb as a rock. It can't move. It urinates everywhere and it will wallow in its own faeces if left unattended.
TvEye also said
You do not have “your own” moral system. You are either conforming to or deviating from an already established moral system.My own moral system . . .
And also:
Perhaps what you actually object to is when people claiming to follow those moral values do not do so. You might clarify your objection by listing what you perceive as a specific moral standard of one or more of those religions and explaining why you think it is questionable. Do you actually object to the moral value?My main concern is that I wouldn't want my child forming moral values which have their base in religion. The morality of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic religions, from my subjective viewpoint, can be very questionable.
Obviously wrote:
Maybe we could rob from your perfect brain cells, clone them, and cure alzheimers?These things are not unethical in my mind.
Neutrino adds his usual silliness:
Yes, by God.Well the only God to be consistently worshipped throughout human history is God of the Gaps. It made a lot more sense when our scientific knowledge was minimal to posit gods as explanations for many things - rivers, mountains, the sun, and so on. From the moment we became intelligent enough to conceptualize gods we've been conditioned to believe in them. Emphasis added.
Pikkhaud objects to the Christian pitch:
Perhaps you are offended by this statement because you spiritually recognize it as true but intellectually reject it.you will go to hell if you don't belive in God, Jesus Christ and The holy spirit
Geezer after complaining about Harold using the Bible (which he hadn’t)
Uhhh, the golden rule is a Biblical concept. I was not sure if you were objecting to this as "truth" or were endorsing it as a good practice. (Also you need some work on agreement of subject and verb.)the basic truth are the golden rule.
Wow... I'm staying away from this thread.
Carry on...
and I wasn't complaining that he was, reread it. I made a quip using the bible rather than call him an arse.lol where the f**k did you come up with that BS, rotflmao.
the golden rule is common thoughtout society irregardless of colour, creed, or religion.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htmyou do need to learn to read.
well it is fairly easy to care about nothing but yourself.You do not have “your own” moral system. You are either conforming to or deviating from an already established moral system.
That would have been perfect, a cure for alzheimers. NiceMaybe we could rob from your perfect brain cells, clone them, and cure alzheimers?
You realy suck at analysing peoplePerhaps you are offended by this statement because you spiritually recognize it as true but intellectually reject it.
Why is daytonturner allowed to be so condescending and self-righteous? :?
because he's religious.
sheeple usually are.
Pavlos, yet your above statement is extremely self-righteous and condescending. By your argument, then, you too must be a religious sheep?
condescending yes, self-righteous no, religious sheep, lol impossible, I dont follow any religion, I'm a Realist, or you could call me a Rational.
As always the atheists can only separte him/herself to believers by reffering to religious belief. Condescending or not. To be condescending one is to believed to be morally and intellectually superior, morally the true believers are more so than the none believers but I shall not judge here, and anyone can be as intelligent as each other regardless of rationality. Rationailty is for those who seek control, and seeing as life is uncontrollable, rationality is irrelevant.condescending yes, self-righteous no, religious sheep, lol impossible, I dont follow any religion, I'm a Realist, or you could call me a Rational.
I just read a quote by Simon Blackburn that summed up everthing i believe about religion:-
"Religion is fossilized philosophies"
| « New place, new postings! | Why are there more atheist scientists than religious ones? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
