Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One I have heard quite often is this: "I see no good reason to believe any gods exist"
I am fine any atheist stating their own position, but what I will not credit is an atheist claiming they are the same as an infant with no position on the question at all.
I think you are conflating knowledge with belief....and knowledge/belief positions with knowledge/belief specifically in the chart. Our knowledge is a subset of our beliefs....those that are not only justified, but demonstrably true(solipsism arguments aside). Our knowledge positions are also not the same as what we actually know. If I tell you I know pink unicorns are real....that knowledge position (or claim) doesn't mean I have actual knowledge of real pink unicorns.
We operate in accordance with our beliefs (or lack thereof) all the time, and atheism is a belief (or lack thereof). Babies lack belief in theism...if for no other reason than they are incapable of understanding them. But atheism is the not-theism (or not A) belief. So while yes they also don't believe evolution for the same reason....it is not the same purpose behind the "babies are atheists" argument.
The argument of babies being atheist is not to increase or count more people as atheists....it is to highlight that it requires societal indoctrination to become theists....typically. Clearly the human mind is capable of all sorts of imaginative thoughts such as dragons, aliens, and spaghetti monsters. So to say that the notion of god (s) for a human baby without societal indoctrination is impossible is....imprecise. But to say it is not an overwhelming consideration for the propagation of it, defies what we've observed throughout history, where birthplace is the single most predictive characteristic for what religion you might adhere to (though that is changing....albeit slowly).
If you want to make the same argument for evolution.....that it is based largely on birthplace and societal indoctrination....then go ahead. And you can make a convincing argument. But unlike the question of god (s), it doesn't have to end there because the question of justified belief in evolution can be strongly evidenced, without appealing to various god of the gaps (or other) logical fallacies. And you seem to understand that (even if your contrarian impulse strikes you to disagree over semantics).
Just like these theists who insist you believe in god and are just rebelling, you want ignore what people say about their own beliefs and cram them into to slots of your ideology. Well unlike you I agree with them about what they say concerning what they are. You are just another intolerant ideologue like the fundies pushing your rhetoric and simplistic view of the world on everyone, defining things into and out of existence as you please.
I don't see John arguing what people are....but I do see you resorting to ad hominem again while projecting your own intolerance onto those you perceive as unworthy of tolerance.
Last edited by MartinEden99; 07-19-2016 at 06:04 PM..
A more honest careful definition of atheism is a spectrum of positions on the question of whether God exists.
If you want to nail that spectrum down then I would quote things like the following.
One I have heard quite often is this: "I see no good reason to believe any gods exist"
I am fine any atheist stating their own position, but what I will not credit is an atheist claiming they are the same as an infant with no position on the question at all.
I'd say that just about anyone who is a 3 to 7 on that scale would not take religion seriously enough to want to tell others how they need to be saved by an invisible being who came to earth and birthed himself by impregnating a virgin human female.
So, that's good enough for me for all practical purposes.
I think you are conflating knowledge with belief....and knowledge/belief positions with knowledge/belief specifically in the chart. Our knowledge is a subset of our beliefs....those that are not only justified, but demonstrably true(solipsism arguments aside). Our knowledge positions are also not the same as what we actually know. If I tell you I know pink unicorns are real....that knowledge position (or claim) doesn't mean I have actual knowledge of real pink unicorns.
We operate in accordance with our beliefs (or lack thereof) all the time, and atheism is a belief (or lack thereof). Babies lack belief in theism...if for no other reason than they are incapable of understanding them. But atheism is the not-theism (or not A) belief. So while yes they also don't believe evolution for the same reason....it is not the same purpose behind the "babies are atheists" argument.
The argument of babies being atheist is not to increase or count more people as atheists....it is to highlight that it requires societal indoctrination to become theists....typically. Clearly the human mind is capable of all sorts of imaginative thoughts such as dragons, aliens, and spaghetti monsters. So to say that the notion of god (s) for a human baby without societal indoctrination is impossible is....imprecise. But to say it is not an overwhelming consideration for the propagation of it, defies what we've observed throughout history, where birthplace is the single most predictive characteristic for what religion you might adhere to (though that is changing....albeit slowly).
If you want to make the same argument for evolution.....that it is based largely on birthplace and societal indoctrination....then go ahead. And you can make a convincing argument. But unlike the question of god (s), it doesn't have to end there because the question of justified belief in evolution can be strongly evidenced, without appealing to various god of the gaps (or other) logical fallacies. And you seem to understand that (even if your contrarian impulse strikes you to disagree over semantics).
Well said . Now I don't have to waste time on a post myself .
But rather than debate the definition of atheist/agnostic , which theists for some reason seem to feel falls to them to define , we can simply say this . Babies have no belief in gods. They are born as unbelievers, and learn about gods from being taught this . Many accept the indoctrination, a few reject it . But no one becomes a theist because he/she was born with some sense and understanding of gods that naturally developed into knowing not only gods, but which God is the correct God . Which almost always seems to be the predominant one of the country the children are brought up in, amazingly enough .
Last edited by wallflash; 07-19-2016 at 07:04 PM..
A more honest careful definition of atheism is a spectrum of positions on the question of whether God exists.
If you want to nail that spectrum down then I would quote things like the following.
One I have heard quite often is this: "I see no good reason to believe any gods exist"
I am fine any atheist stating their own position, but what I will not credit is an atheist claiming they are the same as an infant with no position on the question at all.
That scale is all about the only atheism that really concerns atheists such ourselves: "Thinking atheists" as I call them. Those who think about the matter.
Dawkins is evidently not considering those who just don't believe, but haven't thought about why and certainly not 'Technical atheists' as i might call those who simply haven't the mental ability to consider the matter. They don't have a god -belief because thy cannot consider the question. That includes those too young to be instructed in what they are supposed to believe.
it wouldn't matter except that it is tactically useful (as well as being evidently true) to deny religion a pre -emptive claim to everyone as God -believers until atheism can indoctrinate them into disbelief..as the Christian apologists would put it.
I think you are conflating knowledge with belief....and knowledge/belief positions with knowledge/belief specifically in the chart. Our knowledge is a subset of our beliefs....those that are not only justified, but demonstrably true(solipsism arguments aside). Our knowledge positions are also not the same as what we actually know. If I tell you I know pink unicorns are real....that knowledge position (or claim) doesn't mean I have actual knowledge of real pink unicorns.
We operate in accordance with our beliefs (or lack thereof) all the time, and atheism is a belief (or lack thereof). Babies lack belief in theism...if for no other reason than they are incapable of understanding them. But atheism is the not-theism (or not A) belief. So while yes they also don't believe evolution for the same reason....it is not the same purpose behind the "babies are atheists" argument.
The argument of babies being atheist is not to increase or count more people as atheists....it is to highlight that it requires societal indoctrination to become theists....typically. Clearly the human mind is capable of all sorts of imaginative thoughts such as dragons, aliens, and spaghetti monsters. So to say that the notion of god (s) for a human baby without societal indoctrination is impossible is....imprecise. But to say it is not an overwhelming consideration for the propagation of it, defies what we've observed throughout history, where birthplace is the single most predictive characteristic for what religion you might adhere to (though that is changing....albeit slowly).
If you want to make the same argument for evolution.....that it is based largely on birthplace and societal indoctrination....then go ahead. And you can make a convincing argument. But unlike the question of god (s), it doesn't have to end there because the question of justified belief in evolution can be strongly evidenced, without appealing to various god of the gaps (or other) logical fallacies. And you seem to understand that (even if your contrarian impulse strikes you to disagree over semantics).
its a finely worded marketing ploy. no doubt its good marketing. your point about pointing out indoctrination is proof of my 'the baby ploy is a marketing ploy" claim, its not factual in a real sense.
A better topic is how can people literally believe a guy died, woke up, and flew away?
When starting this thread I truly expected the majority of posts to be something along the lines of " yeah , I can grasp and appreciate some not believing, even if I do myself ".
Some theists can understand not believing in Santa Claus .
They can understand not believing in the Easter Bunny .
They can grasp not believing in the Tooth Fairy, The Great Pumpkin, UFO abductions, and Bigfoot .
But they claim they can't grasp not believing in God .
Last edited by wallflash; 07-19-2016 at 07:24 PM..
I know! Isn't it great?!
Who wants some boring snooze-inducing stuff?
Action movies are very popular...so is heavy metal music, MMA, U.S. Football, and Jerry Springer.
I love this board!
When starting this thread I truly expected the majority of posts to be something along the lines of " yeah , I can grasp and appreciate some not believing, even if I do myself ".
Theists can understand not believing in Santa Claus .
They can understand not believing in the Easter Bunny .
They can grasp not believing in the Tooth Fairy, The Great Pumpkin, UFO abductions, and Bigfoot .
But they claim they can't grasp not believing in God .
As stated as one of the 'first responders' (pun intended) I moved from Atheist to theist. Just life.
My only real thought is, I don't care if one doesn't believe. I didn't for 30 years... and I still can't really define... I say JC just because HIS message, not people's interpretation is nothing but compassion and love. Even if he is an allegory, that's a good thing.
Sometimes, the sky daddy and all that jazz, it gets tedious. I understand why people do it however. Everyone is at a different stage of development, metaphysics aside. And, often, we got serious shizzle going on in life.
Me, I'm about the biggest s.a. around. But, as I've embraced a simple message of love, compassion, and forgiveness (notice, not scripture) I've mellowed quite a bit... even during a time that's not relevant to the thread but most would struggle with.
I still don't care if one believes in God... and I hope Bigfoot, abductions, not so much the Great Pumpkin as Charlie Brown was a chump, are real. But that's for comedy.
So my ask is, and this is A or T, whoever reads, drop the shenanigans and have a conversation, or, moderators, create a 'METAPHYSICAL FIGHT CLUB FORUM' for those that just want to insult and have a measuring contest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
