Re: Evidence agin Moses, Exodus, Plagues

[Virgil]

In article <ngki2i$1ku$3...@dont-email.me>,
Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 07/05/16 06:55, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <VseXy.270674$WN5.1...@fx34.am4>,
> > "Wm. Esque" <"Wm. Esque"@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/6/2016 10:27 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>> On 07/05/16 00:30, Wm. Esque wrote:
> >>>> On 5/6/2016 6:38 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Newborns are, technically, atheists, at least for their first few
> >>>>> months!
> >>>>>
> >>>> And you know this how?
> >
> > Atheism only requires lack of belief, which all newborns are born with.
>
> And you know this how? Sorry, but unchallenged, unsupported assertions
> don't fly very high with me.
>
> > Theism requires active belief, which they are born without.
>
> And you know this how?

Something you appear to lack, Common sense!

How would a fetus in the womb have developed any beliefs about anything,
much less re gods?
>
> > It is only later that they can develop beliefs in anything, including
> > gods.
>
> And you know this how?

Using the common sense you seem to lack!
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[Richard Heathfield]

On 07/05/16 18:11, Virgil wrote:
> In article <ngki2i$1ku$3...@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 07/05/16 06:55, Virgil wrote:
>>> In article <VseXy.270674$WN5.1...@fx34.am4>,
>>> "Wm. Esque" <"Wm. Esque"@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/6/2016 10:27 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 07/05/16 00:30, Wm. Esque wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/2016 6:38 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Newborns are, technically, atheists, at least for their first few
>>>>>>> months!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you know this how?
>>>
>>> Atheism only requires lack of belief, which all newborns are born with.
>>
>> And you know this how? Sorry, but unchallenged, unsupported assertions
>> don't fly very high with me.
>>
>>> Theism requires active belief, which they are born without.
>>
>> And you know this how?
>
> Something you appear to lack, Common sense!

Common sense is a poor guide to reality. It is wrong far too often to be
reliable.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Virgil]

In article <nglcof$rio$2...@dont-email.me>,

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 07/05/16 18:11, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <ngki2i$1ku$3...@dont-email.me>,
> > Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/05/16 06:55, Virgil wrote:
> >>> In article <VseXy.270674$WN5.1...@fx34.am4>,
> >>> "Wm. Esque" <"Wm. Esque"@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/6/2016 10:27 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/05/16 00:30, Wm. Esque wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/6/2016 6:38 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Newborns are, technically, atheists, at least for their first few
> >>>>>>> months!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> And you know this how?
> >>>
> >>> Atheism only requires lack of belief, which all newborns are born with.
> >>
> >> And you know this how? Sorry, but unchallenged, unsupported assertions
> >> don't fly very high with me.
> >>
> >>> Theism requires active belief, which they are born without.
> >>
> >> And you know this how?
> >
> > Something you appear to lack, Common sense!
>
> Common sense is a poor guide to reality. It is wrong far too often to be
> reliable.

Until you can provide a workable and testable theory of how any sort of
external knowledge gets into the head of an unborn child, the hypothesis
that none does rules!

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 8, 2016 at 2:42:43 AM UTC+8, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 07/05/16 18:11, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <ngki2i$1ku$3...@dont-email.me>,
> > Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/05/16 06:55, Virgil wrote:
> >>> In article <VseXy.270674$WN5.1...@fx34.am4>,
> >>> "Wm. Esque" <"Wm. Esque"@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/6/2016 10:27 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/05/16 00:30, Wm. Esque wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/6/2016 6:38 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Newborns are, technically, atheists, at least for their first few
> >>>>>>> months!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> And you know this how?
> >>>
> >>> Atheism only requires lack of belief, which all newborns are born with.
> >>
> >> And you know this how? Sorry, but unchallenged, unsupported assertions
> >> don't fly very high with me.
> >>
> >>> Theism requires active belief, which they are born without.
> >>
> >> And you know this how?
> >
> > Something you appear to lack, Common sense!
>
> Common sense is a poor guide to reality. It is wrong far too often to be
> reliable.

Common sense is part of IQ which you have in a single digit?

[Richard Heathfield]

Hypotheses don't rule. They explain. A good hypothesis will explain
better than a bad hypothesis, and it will be testable. In this case,
neither hypothesis gives us anything useful, and neither hypothesis is
testable. It's one of those things we just don't know. And if we had any
sense, we wouldn't care either. Why do /you/ care?

[JTEM]

Virgil wrote:

> Something you appear to lack, Common sense!

You call your self an atheist even as you insist
that an atheist is of the same mental state as
a new born baby or fetus. Perhaps you should hold
off using terms like "Common sense" for a while.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144027888748

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <ngmkiq$he5$1...@dont-email.me>,

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> > Until you can provide a workable and testable theory of how any sort of
> > external knowledge gets into the head of an unborn child, the hypothesis
> > that none does rules!
>
> Hypotheses don't rule.

In the absence of contrary evidence, they can.
And the hypothesis that a newborn is, mentally, essentially a tablula
rasa rules! At least in every area of science in which it is relevant.

> Why do /you/ care?

Assuming that anyone is born with any actual notion of godliness would
lead to everyone having pretty much the same notion, so why are there so
many mutually incompatible such notions extant?

[JTEM]

Wisely Non-Theist wrote:

> Assuming that anyone is born with

It's beyond idiocy to claim that newborns
are anything. And why would you want to
compare yourself with the mental state of
a new born anyways?

This is desperation on your part. Let go.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144027888748

[Richard Heathfield]

On 08/05/16 07:21, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> In article <ngmkiq$he5$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Until you can provide a workable and testable theory of how any sort of
>>> external knowledge gets into the head of an unborn child, the hypothesis
>>> that none does rules!
>>
>> Hypotheses don't rule.
>
> In the absence of contrary evidence, they can.

I think that the verb "rule" does not mean what you think it means.

> And the hypothesis that a newborn is, mentally, essentially a tablula
> rasa rules! At least in every area of science in which it is relevant.

A (typical) newborn baby has a brain, and a brain is basically a neural
network, and we don't yet understand enough about what goes on inside
neural networks to be sure of /anything/ very much. About all we do know
is that such networks exhibit (sometimes rather surprising) emergent
characteristics. We can surmise that they also have emergent properties
that are /not/ characteristic (i.e. properties that we haven't spotted
yet!). In the light of this, I would be very surprised indeed to learn
of any scientist claiming that a newborn baby is a mental cipher. Can
you cite a relevant article in a relevant peer-reviewed, reputable
scientific journal that supports your case?

We Just Don't Know.

>> Why do /you/ care?
>
> Assuming that anyone is born with any actual notion of godliness would
> lead to everyone having pretty much the same notion, so why are there so
> many mutually incompatible such notions extant?

I'll answer that in a second. First, I want to reiterate that We Just
Don't Know. *Either* way. I'm not arguing that babies /are/ born with
beliefs. I'm only arguing that we don't know they are and we don't know
they're not.

Now to answer your question. If we assume (purely because you asked me
to assume) that one is born with some kind of theistic belief, and if we
further assume that everyone is born having the /same/ kind of theistic
belief, why are there so many mutually incompatible notions about God?
Well, that's an easy enough question. People are people, and they muck
stuff up on a minute-by-minute basis.

A few years ago I was the lead author of a technical book with a whole
chapter's worth of don't-do-this, and in that chapter I pointed out X (a
particular kind of don't-do-this) and I said that people do X a lot, but
they shouldn't because of Y and Z. And, not long afterwards, on Usenet,
someone pops up saying that in my book I *recommend* doing X!

People get stuff wrong /all the time/.

So even if all children /are/ born believing X (or knowing X, or
whatever), there is no particular reason why they would continue to
believe X (or know X, or whatever) either in its original or in some
adulterated form. They might, by the time they are able to communicate
ideas, have turned X completely on its head in any of a number of ways.

This argument speaks neither to "newborns are born believing in God" or
"newborns are born not believing in God". Rather, it underlines the
point that We Just Don't Know.

We Just Don't Know seems to be an uncomfortable phrase around here. I am
reminded of the reaction of some dogs (or, to be more accurate, the
reaction that is /claimed/ for some dogs) to words like "bath" or "vet".

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Sun, 08 May 2016 00:21:47 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist <a...@bbb.ccc>
wrote:

>In article <ngmkiq$he5$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> > Until you can provide a workable and testable theory of how any sort of
>> > external knowledge gets into the head of an unborn child, the hypothesis
>> > that none does rules!
>>
>> Hypotheses don't rule.
>
>In the absence of contrary evidence, they can.

Popperian falsifiability - they stand until falsified

>And the hypothesis that a newborn is, mentally, essentially a tablula
>rasa rules! At least in every area of science in which it is relevant.

Which stands until falsified.

But like other hypotheses, it is derived from evidence - that children
of theist parents learn whichever god or gods their parent believe in.

And more importantly, that children whose parents don't teach them
gods don't grow up believing in them - and this isn't just Western
atheists but also non-theistic Eastern religions, which between them
account for something like a third of the world's population.
Eastern

>> Why do /you/ care?
>
>Assuming that anyone is born with any actual notion of godliness would
>lead to everyone having pretty much the same notion, so why are there so
>many mutually incompatible such notions extant?

Why do we have to keep explaining this?

Although part of the problem, is that brainwashed theists are
incapable of understanding that atheism is a non-event, the simple
absence of theistic belief. And that we are part of the wider world
beyond their religious paradigm.

They keep getting this wrong, often nastily insisting we're perjuring
ourselves when they try to argue against this - even though we are
atheists describing ourselves and the only think we have in common.

Which is one of the reasons there is acrimony. They have neither the
commonsense nor courtesy to grant that we might actually be telling
the truth about ourselves.

We shouldn't need to do this, and we only do it _after_ they have told
us what our POV is and gotten it wrong.

So almost immediately, he's nastily treating us as idiots because he
imagines we are saying that newborns have the belief he invented and
attributed to us.

Is it any wonder they get treated as idiots, themselves?

I mean, how many times have they been corrected on this but ignored
it, even though it's there in every thread the first time they get it
wrong? And repeated when they make what is no longer an honest
mistake?

[JTEM]

Lying, insane troll, Christopher A. Lee lied:

> Wisely Non-Theist <a...@bbb.ccc> ignorantly wrote:
> >And the hypothesis that a newborn is, mentally, essentially a tablula
> >rasa rules! At least in every area of science in which it is relevant.

> Which stands until falsified.

What the mentally deranged collective is
missing here is that it is NOT describing
an atheist.

...but it's no surprise that a fake
atheist would describe an infant's undeveloped
mind as "Atheist."

Even worse: Pretending that there's any
relevance at all, it would be closest to
an agnostic and not an atheist. The infant,
that is, not the collective.

The collective is simply mad at it's God.
This explains it's emotional need to call
itself an "Atheist" even though it clearly
hasn't the faintest clue as to WHAT an
atheist is. (It thinks it's somehow "Getting"
God by pretending to not believe in him)




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144045955933

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <ngmrk1$4dc$1...@dont-email.me>,

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 08/05/16 07:21, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > In article <ngmkiq$he5$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>> Until you can provide a workable and testable theory of how any sort of
> >>> external knowledge gets into the head of an unborn child, the hypothesis
> >>> that none does rules!
> >>
> >> Hypotheses don't rule.
> >
> > In the absence of contrary evidence, they can.
>
> I think that the verb "rule" does not mean what you think it means.
>
> > And the hypothesis that a newborn is, mentally, essentially a tablula
> > rasa rules! At least in every area of science in which it is relevant.
>
> A (typical) newborn baby has a brain, and a brain is basically a neural
> network, and we don't yet understand enough about what goes on inside
> neural networks to be sure of /anything/ very much. About all we do know
> is that such networks exhibit (sometimes rather surprising) emergent
> characteristics.

But knowledge of and belief in a god are neither of them known to be
present in the fertilized ovum, so would have to be acquired between
fertilization and birth via some unknown mechanism, which thesis I
reject.

[Bob Officer]

Christopher A. Lee <c....@fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 08 May 2016 00:21:47 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist <a...@bbb.ccc>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <ngmkiq$he5$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Until you can provide a workable and testable theory of how any sort of
>>>> external knowledge gets into the head of an unborn child, the hypothesis
>>>> that none does rules!
>>>
>>> Hypotheses don't rule.
>>
>> In the absence of contrary evidence, they can.
>
> Popperian falsifiability - they stand until falsified
>
>> And the hypothesis that a newborn is, mentally, essentially a tablula
>> rasa rules! At least in every area of science in which it is relevant.
>
> Which stands until falsified.
>
> But like other hypotheses, it is derived from evidence - that children
> of theist parents learn whichever god or gods their parent believe in.
>
> And more importantly, that children whose parents don't teach them
> gods don't grow up believing in them - and this isn't just Western
> atheists but also non-theistic Eastern religions, which between them
> account for something like a third of the world's population.
> Eastern

Even his own bible NT requires acceptance...
So his only source of evidence refutes his claim.
The OT tells parents to train their children in the way of the lord.
The Catholics and many religious groups require christening of the child.
Others require public statement of acceptance at a specific age.

The bible itself refutes him.

--
Yep it is me, and Carole believes adding 2+2 can sometimes equal 3 or 5,
and getting wrong answers means you are thinking outside the box.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 08/05/16 21:49, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
<snip>

>
> But knowledge of and belief in a god are neither of them known to be
> present in the fertilized ovum,

That's true - neither of them are known to be present. Neither of them
are known to be absent, either, so We Just Don't Know.

> so would have to be acquired between
> fertilization and birth via some unknown mechanism,

...unless they /are/ present (which we don't know), in which case they
wouldn't need to be acquired because they'd already be present (which we
don't know).

> which thesis I reject.

That's fine. There are all manner of theses I reject, too. But the mere
rejection of a thesis by J Random Usenaut does not imply its falsity.

[Alex W.]

On 09/05/2016 17:40, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 08/05/16 21:49, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>> But knowledge of and belief in a god are neither of them known to be
>> present in the fertilized ovum,
>
> That's true - neither of them are known to be present. Neither of them
> are known to be absent, either, so We Just Don't Know.

But we do know.

Biology forbids.

Until several months after birth, a baby's brain is simply not capable
of conceiving of its own existence, so it cannot possibly conceive of a
relationship with another. In order for there to be an "other" --
whether human or divine -- there has to be a knowledge of self.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 09/05/16 08:53, Alex W. wrote:
> On 09/05/2016 17:40, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 08/05/16 21:49, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> But knowledge of and belief in a god are neither of them known to be
>>> present in the fertilized ovum,
>>
>> That's true - neither of them are known to be present. Neither of them
>> are known to be absent, either, so We Just Don't Know.
>
> But we do know.
>
> Biology forbids.
>
> Until several months after birth, a baby's brain is simply not capable
> of conceiving of its own existence,

Assumes facts not in evidence.

> so it cannot possibly conceive of a
> relationship with another.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

> In order for there to be an "other" --
> whether human or divine -- there has to be a knowledge of self.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Can you back up any of this stuff?

[Virgil]

In article <ngpemd$khl$1...@dont-email.me>,

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 08/05/16 21:49, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > But knowledge of and belief in a god are neither of them known to be
> > present in the fertilized ovum,
>
> That's true - neither of them are known to be present.
> Neither of them
> are known to be absent, either, so We Just Don't Know.

And it is certain sure that a recently fertilized such ovum doesn't know
either

>
> > so would have to be acquired between
> > fertilization and birth via some unknown mechanism,
>
> ...unless they /are/ present (which we don't know)

Which we know they are not, at least not in any recently fertilized
such ovum!

Or does Richard Heathfield wish to hypothesize some method or mechanism
by which a freshly fertilized ovum can acquire and hold any knowledge of
some alleged but unproven god?

[Richard Heathfield]

On 09/05/16 18:10, Virgil wrote:

<snip>

> Or does Richard Heathfield wish to hypothesize some method or mechanism
> by which a freshly fertilized ovum can acquire and hold any knowledge of
> some alleged but unproven god?

This is yet another attempt to extend my position; to push me into
defending a claim that I have not made.

What I wish is to see some evidence to support the assertion that
newborn babies are necessarily atheistic. So far, I have seen nothing in
support of that assertion except for further, equally unsupported,
assertions and a few shoddy debating tricks.

[Virgil]

In article <ngpjh1$4br$1...@dont-email.me>,

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 09/05/16 08:53, Alex W. wrote:
> > On 09/05/2016 17:40, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 08/05/16 21:49, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>>
> >>> But knowledge of and belief in a god are neither of them known to be
> >>> present in the fertilized ovum,
> >>
> >> That's true - neither of them are known to be present. Neither of them
> >> are known to be absent, either, so We Just Don't Know.
> >

That Richard Heathfield does not know is strictly HIS problem!
But WE do know!

Knowledge and belief require memory, and memory requires brain cells,
and an ovum doesn't have any. So an ovum has no knowledge of the sort
required to know about gods.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 09/05/16 18:34, Virgil wrote:
> In article <ngpjh1$4br$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 09/05/16 08:53, Alex W. wrote:
>>> On 09/05/2016 17:40, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 08/05/16 21:49, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> But knowledge of and belief in a god are neither of them known to be
>>>>> present in the fertilized ovum,
>>>>
>>>> That's true - neither of them are known to be present. Neither of them
>>>> are known to be absent, either, so We Just Don't Know.
>>>
>
> That Richard Heathfield does not know is strictly HIS problem!
> But WE do know!

Well, no, it's not my problem at all, because I'm not the one making the
unsupported assertion. But you seem to be happy to take an unsupported
assertion and embrace it without demanding any evidence. That's your
right, of course, but I had you down as being a bit brighter than that.

[Virgil]

In article <ngqjic$p3q$1...@dont-email.me>,

Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 09/05/16 18:34, Virgil wrote:
> > In article <ngpjh1$4br$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/05/16 08:53, Alex W. wrote:
> >>> On 09/05/2016 17:40, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>>> On 08/05/16 21:49, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But knowledge of and belief in a god are neither of them known to be
> >>>>> present in the fertilized ovum,
> >>>>
> >>>> That's true - neither of them are known to be present. Neither of them
> >>>> are known to be absent, either, so We Just Don't Know.
> >>>
> >
> > That Richard Heathfield does not know is strictly HIS problem!
> > But WE do know!
>
> Well, no, it's not my problem at all, because I'm not the one making the
> unsupported assertion.

You are making the unsupported assertion that there mayt be some way in
which the idea of a god can be inserted into a newly fertilized human
ovum in such a way as to remain there until the birth of the child.

I reject that assertion, at least until some believable physical
mechanism for its occurence has been described.

> that a But you seem to be happy to take an unsupported

> assertion and embrace it without demanding any evidence.

You are the one making unsupported assumption, that some action is
possible even though no mechanism for its execution is known.

That is your right, of course, but does not speak well for your
intelligence.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 09/05/16 21:14, Virgil wrote:
> In article <ngqjic$p3q$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 09/05/16 18:34, Virgil wrote:
>>> In article <ngpjh1$4br$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/05/16 08:53, Alex W. wrote:
>>>>> On 09/05/2016 17:40, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/05/16 21:49, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But knowledge of and belief in a god are neither of them known to be
>>>>>>> present in the fertilized ovum,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's true - neither of them are known to be present. Neither of them
>>>>>> are known to be absent, either, so We Just Don't Know.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> That Richard Heathfield does not know is strictly HIS problem!
>>> But WE do know!
>>
>> Well, no, it's not my problem at all, because I'm not the one making the
>> unsupported assertion.
>
> You are making the unsupported assertion that there mayt be some way in
> which the idea of a god can be inserted into a newly fertilized human
> ovum in such a way as to remain there until the birth of the child.

No, I'm most definitely not doing that. I'm questioning an assertion
that was posted up-thread - so far up-thread that I've completely
forgotten who made that assertion. I guess I'd better go and find it:

From: Wisely Non-Theist <a...@bbb.ccc>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2016 16:38:23 -0600
Message-ID: <aaa-1FA608.1...@news.giganews.com>

"Newborns are, technically, atheists, at least for their first few months!"

I'm asking for some evidence, either from Wisely Non-Theist or indeed
from anyone else, to support the assertion cited above. So far, nobody
has posted any evidence at all, only a bunch more assertions.

> I reject that assertion,

...which I didn't make.

>> that a But you seem to be happy to take an unsupported
>> assertion and embrace it without demanding any evidence.
>
> You are the one making unsupported assumption, that some action is
> possible even though no mechanism for its execution is known.

By that argument, gravity was impossible for millennia. (It may have
/become/ possible in the last N years - I don't know enough about modern
physics to be able to tell. But for thousands of years, gravity was, by
your lights, a myth, and people should have laughed at those foolish
enough to fall over when they tripped.) Our lack of knowledge of a
mechanism does *not* imply the non-existence of such a mechanism. (Nor
does it imply the existence of such a mechanism.)

> That is your right, of course, but does not speak well for your
> intelligence.

That's the most courteous ad hominem attack I've seen for a while, but
it's still an ad hominem attack.

When someone makes an assertion "X is true", and fails to provide
evidence in support of that claim, it is not unreasonable for other
people to question the claim, and to ask for some supporting evidence.
In the current case, people have been bending over backwards to find
some way (/any/ way, even ad hominem attacks) in which they can appear
to win the argument without providing the evidence. Surely there must
/be/ some evidence, if the claim has any merit? So where is it?

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <ngqs3a$s9g$1...@dont-email.me>,

In rejecting the assertion of no beliefs in a fetus, one is
automatically asserting the presence of beliefs , or at least the
possibility that beliefs can occur, in a fetus.

Which assertion requires a believable mechanism by which to achieve that
belief.

Absent any believable such mechanism, one cannot justify any claim of
any such insertions.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 09 May 2016 17:48:43 -0600, Wisely Non-Theist <a...@bbb.ccc>
wrote:

An outright lie.

Children are taught whatever god their parents believe, and children
whose parents don't teach a god, don't grow up as theists.

>> > I reject that assertion
>
> In rejecting the assertion of no beliefs in a fetus, one is
>automatically asserting the presence of beliefs , or at least the
>possibility that beliefs can occur, in a fetus.

Exactly.

Instead of weaseling.

>Which assertion requires a believable mechanism by which to achieve that
>belief.
>
>Absent any believable such mechanism, one cannot justify any claim of
>any such insertions.

The problem is that theists can't remember a time when they didn't
believe, so they imagine it is inherent.

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 1:20:59 AM UTC+8, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 09/05/16 18:10, Virgil wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Or does Richard Heathfield wish to hypothesize some method or mechanism
> > by which a freshly fertilized ovum can acquire and hold any knowledge of
> > some alleged but unproven god?
>
> This is yet another attempt to extend my position; to push me into
> defending a claim that I have not made.
>
> What I wish is to see some evidence to support the assertion that
> newborn babies are necessarily atheistic. So far, I have seen nothing in
> support of that assertion except for further, equally unsupported,
> assertions and a few shoddy debating tricks.

I think your understanding of things is less than that of a new born.

[JTEM]

Virgil wrote:

> You are making the unsupported assertion that there mayt be some way in
> which the idea of a god can be inserted into a newly fertilized human
> ovum in such a way as to remain there until the birth of the child.

Um, dude, that's not an atheist. It's not
even similar to an atheist. A truly desperate
person might argue that a newborn or fetus is
an AGNOSTIC, but you'd have to be chugging down
the Koolaid pretty fast in order to think that
they're atheists.

Grow up. It just shouldn't matter to you. You
shouldn't care so much that you'd lower yourself
to this idiocy.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144111420208

[JTEM]

Wisely Non-Theist wrote:

> In rejecting the assertion of no beliefs in a fetus, one is
> automatically asserting the presence of beliefs , or at least the
> possibility that

You're thinking of agnostic, you shit head.

A-G-N-O-S-T-I-C-S

It's the agnostics who are the fence sitters,
the ones who don't believe there isn't a God
and don't believe there is.

But an AGNOSTIC would have to be pretty fucked
up in order to group themselves with infants
and fetuses.

What would be the point?

Seriously, you win a loaded diaper of something?

"I think like a fetus, that makes me oh
so *Special*!"

I mean, in a group famous for shitty argument,
this has got to be the most shitty...



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144111420208

[JTEM]

ALWAYS a lying sack of shit....

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> Children are taught whatever god their parents believe, and children
> whose parents don't teach a god, don't grow up as theists.

Liar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_nontheism

Plenty of people were raised as atheists only
to join a church.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144113712223

[JTEM]

Virgil wrote:

> And it is certain sure that a recently fertilized such ovum doesn't know
> either

Only the collective can argue that it thinks
like a recently fertilized ovum & be proud of
it.

Honestly, you shouldn't be this desperate. You
shouldn't need to "win" an argument so bad that

you'd lower yourself to this idiocy.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144113712223

[Richard Heathfield]

On 10/05/16 00:48, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> In article <ngqs3a$s9g$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>

[Look very carefully at the following name and quote level. Later on,
there'll be a test!]

>> On 09/05/16 21:14, Virgil wrote:

[Yep, that's the one: 09/05/16 21:14... got the name? Okay, now read on.]

And now you can't even count quote marks? I haven't rejected *any*
assertions. The above text ("I reject that assertion") was written by
Virgil, not by me. I have rejected no assertions, either about newborn
babies (which is what this sub-thread is about) or about foetuses (which
this sub-thread is not about, but people keep trying to drag in). I've
asked someone, anyone, to provide evidence for the assertion you made.
And, whenever I ask, I am met with prevarication, misunderstanding,
insults, diversions, distractions, debating fouls, and now an inability
to count. The only thing (so far) that I /haven't/ been met with is the
evidence I seek, and this from a bunch of people who (rightly) set such
great store by evidence. One could almost be forgiven for thinking that
you have no evidence to provide!

[Les Hellawell]

On Mon, 9 May 2016 22:38:48 -0700 (PDT), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Virgil wrote:
>
>> You are making the unsupported assertion that there mayt be some way in
>> which the idea of a god can be inserted into a newly fertilized human
>> ovum in such a way as to remain there until the birth of the child.
>
>Um, dude, that's not an atheist.

If a baby is not born believing there are gods he is
obviously 'not a theist', a term that can be abbreviated to
'atheist' using the standard dictionary prefix qualifier
a- (which means not or without). So yes a baby is
technically atheist like the rest of us here but so what?

In reality it is just a baby in the same way I am just
an elderly adult. The theist claimed gods are just something for
theists to obsess about and irrrelevant to babies and the rest of us
normal folk just getting on with our lives.



<a cut above the rest>

Les Hellawell
Grreting from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

Martin Luther wrote::
"Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding

Which means that if Luther practised what he preached
nothing he ever said made any sense

[hhya...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016 at 1:46:05 PM UTC+8, JTEM wrote:
> ALWAYS a lying sack of shit....
>
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> > Children are taught whatever god their parents believe, and children
> > whose parents don't teach a god, don't grow up as theists.

Children are also the victim of influence by his friends or school mates.
>
> Liar:

There is no lie....you moron just want to disagree with valid points.
Most theists are the result of parental indoctrination from small, moron.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_nontheism
>
> Plenty of people were raised as atheists only
> to join a church.

I cannot agree with you that is true...once being raised as atheists, they know the value of being an atheists such as moral people, social responsible and law-abiding citizens.
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144113712223

[JTEM]

hhya...@gmail.com wrote:

> There is no lie....

Except the claim that children whose parents
don't teach God don't grow up as theists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_nontheism

So apart from THAT lie, which is the only lie
I was responding to at the time, there were no
other lies.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144113712223

[JTEM]

Remember: There is NO binary! It's not a
case where everyone who isn't a theist is
an atheist.

Les Hellawell wrote:

> If a baby is not born believing there are gods he is
> obviously 'not a theist', a term that can be abbreviated to
> 'atheist'

I spelled out WHY it's wrong. I also pointed
out how crazy it is to insist that you share
a mental state with a new born or fetus.

Please, accept your error and move on.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/144113712223