Are people born as Atheists or as Agnostics?
harsha
Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
Agnostics.
But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
belief in its non existentiality.
What is your opinion?
Jimbo
My Grandfather was a Baptist Minister, so as you can imagine I was
indoctrinated at a very early age. I do remember though that even at
the age of 4 or 5, the Christian Religion (and in later years any
other religion) made absolutely no logical or intellectual sense.
Oh, I went through all of the motions that were expected. I went to
church, prayed, I even won contests for Bible Verse memorization and
could recite whole books of the Bible by the time I was twelve, was
Baptized, the whole nine yards, but I could never brought myself to
believe it. It just seemed to primitive and bizarre. Still, I
wanted to believe as the rest of my hometown seemed to believe, and
studied religion for a while, both here and after my stint in the Navy
I stayed in Israel and studied at the University of Tel Aviv for two
years. Still, I found nothing that convinced me that God existed,
and that the Bible was any more than a collection of folk fables. So
now I'm 65 years old, and have never believed in the existence of a
diety.
Jenny6833A
As you state, everyone is born without beliefs of any kind. Thus,
newborns are athests (they lack belief in a god or gods) but they are
not agnostics. Agnosticism is itself a belief. Agnostic: One who
believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
:-)
Jenny
phil k.
> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this Theistic
> claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
I second that.
> But he claims that they are
> born with a lack of belief in existence of God and also lack of belief
> in non existence of God which makes them Agnostics.
Bullshitt. He thereby says that Atheists are believing in the non-
existence of god. I, as an atheist, would never subscribe to that, but I
allow for the possibility that a god might exist, though I think of it as
likely as of the existence of the tooth-fairy.
Anyhow, he's got the concept of atheism wrong. But this doesn't surprise
me, it's a rephrase of the old "Atheist deny God's existence" stick.
All we do is lack belief in god's existence. We might be wrong, but so
far, no evidence was presented whatsoever that we were forced to change
our mindset -- quite the opposite happened.
> But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until it
> is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> belief in its non existentiality.
Exactly. It's a confusing play on words. Nothing more. Don't fall for
it :)
Robibnikoff
"harsha" <harsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fba12dad-8ae7-44d4...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
Correct
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight
#1557
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Since all infants are incapable of understanding, much less practicing,
any form of theism, they are without theism.
Ergo, everyone is born an atheist.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
http://azhotops.blogspot.com
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
Christopher A. Lee
<Jenny...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Jun 26, 2:33?am, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
>> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>>
>> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
>> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
>> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>> But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
>> God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
>> Agnostics.
Only in the imagination of the kind of believer who can't grasp that
the rest of the world doesn't revolve around their beliefs.
Which unfortunately means far too many of them.
Even though it doesn't.
>> But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
>> it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
>> belief in its non existentiality.
Why not?
Why should its merest mention make it any more than "what somebody
else believes"?
Do you "believe Father Christmas exists"?.
So you must believe "Father Christmas doesn't exist"?
Ah. So you must be agnostic about it?
Or do you see it as what your favourite niece believes?
Which is what it actually is. A charming game we go along with for
the kids at Christmas.
If it's analysed at all it's as a cultural or anthropological
phenomenon.
Yet we're not permitted to see religious beliefs in the same light.
>> What is your opinion?
>
>As you state, everyone is born without beliefs of any kind. Thus,
>newborns are athests (they lack belief in a god or gods) but they are
>not agnostics. Agnosticism is itself a belief. Agnostic: One who
>believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
There are plenty of alt.atheists who were never taught to be theist at
all and remain in exactly the same state of not believing as they were
born.
The only thing that happened when they met their first theist, was
that "some people believe something" got added to their experience
base.
Like most other atheists they have nothing to "believe doesn't exist"
or to "not know" because they are outside the Christian or any other
theist religion.
Which remarkably obvious fact is apparently beyond the IQ of believers
even though that's how they see all the other religious beliefs that
way themselves.
>:-)
>
>Jenny
Richo
> I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
I don't agree with the application of the definition of atheist to
beings not *capable* of belief.
A complete innocent - someone who has never heard of God cannot
believe or disbelieve - the concept doesn't apply.
So a baby, a rock or a tomato cannot be a theist nor can it be an
atheist.
> But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> Agnostics.
>
No that's wrong.
Agnosticism is a belief about knowledge and the possibility of
knowledge.
> But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> belief in its non existentiality.
>
> What is your opinion?
To describe a rock as a non smoker - because it doesn't smoke or as a
vegetarian - because it doesn't eat meat - or an atheist because it
doesn't believe in god - is to apply labels and concepts to things
outside their scope - its just gibberish.
Mark.
phil k.
> Which is what it actually is. A charming game we go along with for the
> kids at Christmas.
I'd rather call it a sick game.
Christopher A. Lee
<m.richa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 26, 7:33�pm, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
>> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>>
>> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
>> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
>> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>
>I don't agree with the application of the definition of atheist to
>beings not *capable* of belief.
>A complete innocent - someone who has never heard of God cannot
>believe or disbelieve - the concept doesn't apply.
>So a baby, a rock or a tomato cannot be a theist nor can it be an
>atheist.
The a- prefix makes it binary. They are certainly not theist.
They are TRIVIALLY atheist.
Why keep ignoring the "trivially"?
The day they discover that theists exist, their state of not believing
in something doesn't change.
All that happens is that the fact that people believe something, gets
added to their experience base.
>> But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
>> God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
>> Agnostics.
>>
>
>No that's wrong.
>Agnosticism is a belief about knowledge and the possibility of
>knowledge.
>
>> But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
>> it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
>> belief in its non existentiality.
>>
>> What is your opinion?
>
>To describe a rock as a non smoker - because it doesn't smoke or as a
>vegetarian - because it doesn't eat meat - or an atheist because it
>doesn't believe in god - is to apply labels and concepts to things
>outside their scope - its just gibberish.
People wouldn't describe rocks as atheists or non-smokers unless some
idiot raised the context of them being smokers or theists.
Which usually happens when they can't grasp that kids don't believe
until they are taught to, and that if they aren't taught it they
remain in exactly the same sate of not believing that they were born
with.
>Mark.
Richo
wrote:
> harsha wrote:
> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> > Agnostics.
>
> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> > belief in its non existentiality.
>
> > What is your opinion?
>
> An atheist is someone who is not theist.
I don't believe this really works.
An atheist is someone capable of being a theist who is not a theist.
We don't usually bother putting in the "capable of being" part because
it is implicit - assumed.
Terms only apply within certain domains - the universe of discourse -
and outside those domains their use generates nonsense or possibly
poetry. 8-)
Dead people, unconscious people and new born babies are not capable of
being theist - so they are certainly "not theist" - but neither are
they atheist.
"Yucky is not delicious" works (kind of) *if* you are talking about
food - use it outside of that context then it generates some weird
statements.
"Combing my hair is not delicious therefore it is yucky"
The general point is that every proposition has at least three answers
- yes, no and "inapplicable".
Its not always This Or That ... it can be neither.
True *exhaustive* dichotomies are actually very rare beasties.
That's my take on these things anyway.
Mark.
AZ Nomad
>On Jun 26, 10:08?pm, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktaylo...@getnet.net>
If they lack a god belief, they are atheist.
Mike Jones
The whole question hangs on the existence of "theism".
Others here have already made some pretty good points, so I won't rehash
them. However...
There is a state, IMO, whereby until one introduces an applicable concept
model, one cannot describe something as a "something" or a "not-
something" until that something is defined (including what that
something /isn't/, as well as /is/), conceptualised, and a reaction
gained.
IOW, there is no "inherent atheism" in anything or anyone because there
is no inherent theism to form a definition from.
An infant is by it's nature pre-theistic, and therfore pre-atheistic.
Only the remote already-defined perspective has a concept model to make a
distinction regarding such matters. The infant is unaffected until
introduced to the concepts.
And there is the trick to beware of. One CHOOSES to be an atheist as a
reaction to the presence of theism. Without any other change, if theism
didn't exist, there would be no atheists as we would all be atheistic
without even being aware if that state, just as we are all (up till now
that is) ablobistic, but none of us are blobbists or therefore ablobbists.
As someone else has already indicated, its a pre-loaded question induced
by theistic propaganda. It works along similar lines to Groucho Marx's
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
If, however, you turned it around and asked "Are people born theistic?"
the answer would be a clear "Absolutely not!" as this kind of thing has
to be /introduced/ to the mind and re-enforced to make sure the child
doesn't develop it's initial reaction to laugh at the obvious insanity of
theism, the "science" of promoting the impossible, even against
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
--
*===( http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
*===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
*===( http://www.slackware.com/
Greg G.
The terms have so many definitions to so many different people, the
words, without adjectives, are almost worthless when it comes to
exchanging ideas, especially between those of different persuasions.
That said, I'm a fairly strong atheist because I realize that there is
no way to disprove a carefully crafted non-definition of the
supernatural, a shy, deistic being, or a sufficiently omnipotent
being who is capable of deliberately hiding from us, but it is
absolutely ridiculous to believe in any of those types.
It all depends on the definitions. In Philosophy, as I've been
informed b'y someone with a PhD in the field, the terms are mutually
exclusive. A naive person, such as a baby, has no belief and doesn't
fit any of the mutually exclusive philosophical categories, as they
are statements of belief.
In common usage, atheist and theist are exclusive, but one can be an
agnostic and either a theist or an atheist - one can be either and
believe there is no way to verify that belief.
IMHO, one is either a theist or not a theist and the term for "not a
theist" is "atheist". What is somebody who believes that there is no
gods? That is where the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" come
into play. I think the term "agnostic" can only be applied to a person
who has actually considered the position. The agnostic atheist is a
subset of the weak atheist. I would break down the theist category to
"non-religious" and "religious", rather than "weak" or "strong".
So, IMHO, a baby is a weak atheist.
Christopher A. Lee
<m.richa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 26, 10:08�pm, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktaylo...@getnet.net>
>wrote:
>> harsha wrote:
>> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
>> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>>
>> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
>> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
>> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>> > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
>> > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
>> > Agnostics.
>>
>> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
>> > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
>> > belief in its non existentiality.
>>
>> > What is your opinion?
>>
>> An atheist is someone who is not theist.
>
>I don't believe this really works.
>
>An atheist is someone capable of being a theist who is not a theist.
>
>We don't usually bother putting in the "capable of being" part because
>it is implicit - assumed.
And we don't usually bother putting in the TRIVIALLY part because it
is assumed.
>Terms only apply within certain domains - the universe of discourse -
>and outside those domains their use generates nonsense or possibly
>poetry. 8-)
>
>Dead people, unconscious people and new born babies are not capable of
>being theist - so they are certainly "not theist" - but neither are
>they atheist.
They are TRIVIALLY atheist because they aren't theist. The a- prefix
makes it binary.
Either somethiong is theist or it isn't. But it says much about the
person introducing the context of dead people, rocks etc being theist
or atheist.
It's a canard used as a red herring.
Usually to dismiss the fact that kids who aren't taught to be theist
remain in exactly the same state of not believing that they were born
with, rather than address it.
[argument from bad analogy snipped]
fasgnadh
> I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>
Much as we are tempted to agree that an atheist is ANY NON SENTIENT
entity, and that, for example, dog shit and snot are among the MOST
INTELLIGENT of these real atheists, we must, in the interests of logic
and humour, ridicule your stupidity and mock you to oblivion! B^]
As we have been doing for MONTHS: B^D
# From: fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.religion,aus.religion,aus.politics,
# uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.communism,alt.politics.republicans,
# alt.politics.democrats
# Subject: Re: The Real atheists: Dog Shit, Used Tampons, Smegma
# and Snot!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAA!
# Message-ID: <xp3Bl.399$y61...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:51:25 GMT
#
# AZ Nomad wrote:
# >> On Mar 29, 5:14 pm, AZ Nomad <aznoma...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
# >>>> On Mar 6, 8:16 am, Virgil <Vir...@gmale.com> wrote:
# >>>>> In article <V3Vrl.25408$cu.17...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
# >>>>> fasgnadh <fasgn...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
#
# >>>>>> Virgil continued the atheist membership drive, recruiting
# >>>>>> babies;
# >>>>>>>
# >>>>>>> If the person making that claim is including non-beleivers
# >>>>>>> in gods, as well as anti-believers, in his/her definition
# >>>>>>> of A-theism (without a god), then babies are certainly
# >>>>>>> non-believers.
# >>>>>>
# >>>>>> As are rocks, trees, grains of sand on the beach and
# >>>>>> my dog, Deefa!
#
# >>>>>> In fact Deefa is the most intelligent of all of you..
# >>>>>> and, unlike Atheists, HE'S NOT BARKING MAD! B^D
#
# >>> If they don't have a god belief then they are atheist.
#
# rocks, trees, grains of sand on the beach and my dog, Deefa
# don't have a god belief, according to these atheist CRETINS,
# that makes them Atheists!
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA!
#
# At least those sub-epsilon atheist morons recognise their
# INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORS!
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAHAHAAHHAHA!
#
# EVERYTHING, that has an IQ small enough not to be able to
# form a belief!!!!
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA
#
# Watching atheists debate is like watching 'tards
# compare their lobotomy scars to see which one had
# the most brain removed;
#
# Dog shit and Used Tampons,
# Smegma and Snot all lack 'a God belief'
#
# > Are they god believers? No?
#
# No.
#
# > Then they are atheist.
# >
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
#
# Atheism's FINEST!!!!!
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
Losing support since the days when atheist states terrorised tortured
and murdered tens of millions of victims, atheists are frantic to boost
their numbers any way they can.. but claiming a lump of shit
is an atheist is really desperate! B^)
EVEN IF VIRGIL AND SYD PROVE ITS TRUE!!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAA
--
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Christopher A. Lee
Nobody "chooses" to be atheist.
The a- makes it binary: the prefixed property is either present or
absent.
Some things are trivially atheist. And it says a lot of unflattering
things about people who introduce the concept of theism vs atheism.
Except...
Babies who don't get taught to be theist remain atheist.
>As someone else has already indicated, its a pre-loaded question induced
>by theistic propaganda. It works along similar lines to Groucho Marx's
>"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Good analogy.
>If, however, you turned it around and asked "Are people born theistic?"
>the answer would be a clear "Absolutely not!" as this kind of thing has
>to be /introduced/ to the mind and re-enforced to make sure the child
>doesn't develop it's initial reaction to laugh at the obvious insanity of
>theism, the "science" of promoting the impossible, even against
>overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Kids who aren't raised to be theist remain as atheist as the day they
were born. The only difference is that they realise some people
believe something they themselves don't.
All it takes is a combination of critical thinking and nurturing the
kids desire for knowledge. He will already have the answers to loaded
questions the average theist thinks are silver bullets...
"Who created the universe?"
[puzzled] "Why did it need somebody to do it?"
"Surely you don't believe it was an accident?"
[puzzled] "No", [explains the big bang]
"But who made the big bang happen?"
[puzzled] "Why did it need somebody to do it?"
etc
They're not taught to be theist, or that it is insane - the first
reaction when they find out is mild amusement. I thought my
schoolteacher was playing a silly game, like kids playing Hercules and
Aeolus. I was amazed she expected me to take the stuff of fairy
stories seriously, which amazed her even more - and astounded me.
The realisation that it is insanity comes later when they find out
just how much of a fantasy world the adults live in, and how they are
completely incapable of understanding the rest of the world and the
people in it. And the simplistic binary thinking, the invention of
"reasons" they tell us why we say what we do, etc.
Especially if they have been told fairy stories, myths and legends
etc before they encounter their first theist. Or have already grown
out of Santa Claus.
But what is annoying is that the question assumes that somebody else's
religious belief is the norm, and is as important in its absence as it
is for the theist.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
I tend to agree. The terms "Theist" and "Atheist are binary
opposits, assuming a level of knowledge where a decision was made.
The appropriate term would be something that equates to "Tabula Rasa-
eist", if such a term exists. Sort of like if you're a programmer
you learn that there is a difference between Zero, and Null. An empty
set, vs no set.
zencycle
more lucid argument
> # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA!
> #
> # At least those sub-epsilon atheist morons recognise their
> # INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORS!
> #
> # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAHAHAAHHAHA!
> #
> # EVERYTHING, that has an IQ small enough not to be able to
> # form a belief!!!!
> #
> # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA
> #
> #
> # Dog shit and Used Tampons,
> # Smegma and Snot all lack 'a God belief'
> #
> # > Are they god believers? No?
> #
> # No.
> #
> # > Then they are atheist.
> # >
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> #
> # Atheism's FINEST!!!!!
> # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
>
> claiming a lump of shit
> is an atheist is really desperate! B^)
>
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAA
>
Don't expect real answers from faggsie....
Faggsie has run repeatedly from me when presented with facts and
alternate interpretations of scripture.
He claims to have railed against the Iranian gvt when they imprisoned
Roxana Saberi, yet when I challenged him to produce his screed, I was
met with silence.
I've proved him wring in that muslims no longer practice stonings, and
that Laura Ling and Euna Lee issued press releases saying they were
kidnapped. These were met with changing the subject.
I've chased faggsie from north korea to saudi arabia, and the best he
can come up with "bwaaaaaa!"
Fagsnads - just another deluded religious tool.
Larry
776a25...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> Agnostics.
>
>
They're innocent atheists. Thats why all the religions run these brainwash
schools to fill their heads with their brand of superstition and terror,
and try to completely isolate the atheist children from all other exposure
to the outside world, whether they're being indoctrinated into Judaism or
some christie commune where there's no TV.
They don't believe anything until some superstitious adult comes in and
screws over their heads....
....then they believe in Santa, Tooth Fairy, My Little Pony, Hannah
Montana......Hey, there's a great idea, leave them believing in Hannah
Montana! They'll all lead much happier lives.....
--
-----
Larry
I believe in Hannah Montana!
Pumpkinhead
Alex W.
What's sick about it?
panam...@hotmail.com
I think you nailed it spot on. I've noticed that many people
(especially in the last few years where atheists have started speaking
out) would rather believe their non-believing friends are "agnostic",
either because they find the term less threatening-or because they
misunderstand the term. Here in the Southern US, most people think it
means "looking for the right god", rather than "unable to know about
gods". It's part of the wall of protection they've build around their
myths, IMO.
Personally, I consider agnosticism as "begging the question", since it
treats the existence of gods as somehow more "important" than the
existence of polo playing dugongs on Ganymede.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Uncle Vic
Ask him whether he was born with a lack of belief in leprechauns. A
person cannot proclaim no knowledge of god (agnosticism) if he has no
knowledge of the concept of god, therefore he is wrong.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
December? These idiots can't even agree...
Christopher A. Lee
<pumpkin_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Both.
Only if you don't know what an agnostic is.
John Locke
<harsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
>Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
>I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
>without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
>Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
>God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
>Agnostics.
>
People are born with a blank slate and the ability to learn and
reason. Lack of belief in superstitious nonsense or faith in invisible
monsters are a acquired behaviors. Unfortunately for many children,
their behaviors are acquired through religious brain washing...which
should be a crime.
_______________________________________________________________
If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school
children would be wearing little Electric Chairs around
their necks instead of crosses." [Lenny Bruce]
Virgil
<fba12dad-8ae7-44d4...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
harsha <harsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> Agnostics.
>
> But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> belief in its non existentiality.
>
> What is your opinion?
Who will qualify as being an atheist depends on precisely what your
definition of "atheist" is.
If your definition includes all those who merely do not believe in the
existence of any gods, then babies are atheist by that definition.
But if your definition requires that atheists also believe that no gods
exist, then babies are not atheist, at least until they have had time to
acquire such a belief.
But it is equally true that no newborn is a theist.
--
Virgil
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> harsha wrote:
> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
> >
> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> >
> > What is your opinion?
>
> Much as we are tempted to agree
Fasgnadh has never been tempted to agree with anything that makes sense.
--
Virgil
Jimbo
> In article
> <fba12dad-8ae7-44d4-bce2-776a253ef...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> > Agnostics.
>
> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> > belief in its non existentiality.
>
> > What is your opinion?
>
> Who will qualify as being an atheist depends on precisely what your
> definition of "atheist" is.
>
> If your definition includes all those who merely do not believe in the
> existence of any gods, then babies are atheist by that definition.
I disagree. Saying that someone does not believe in something is not
quite the same thing as never having been exposed to the knowledge of
something. Not believing in something by definition requires
knowledge and a decision not to believe. An absence of belief, one
way or the other, due to lack of information is not the same. The
same sort of difference between zero, and nothing. It's subtle, but
it is different.
>
> But if your definition requires that atheists also believe that no gods
> exist, then babies are not atheist, at least until they have had time to
> acquire such a belief.
>
> But it is equally true that no newborn is a theist.
>
> --
> Virgil- Hide quoted text -
etienne
> I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> Agnostics.
>
> But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> belief in its non existentiality.
>
> What is your opinion?
You are right, babies are atheists, you need to know what the word God
means to be an agnostic.
Jimbo
You also have to know what the word, and concept of God is to develop
a belief, or disbelief in God. A lack of belief is not necessarily a
disbelief.
Trance Gemini
> I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> Agnostics.
You are correct and he's incorrect.
Theism relates to Belief and Gnosticism relates to Knowledge.
So a theist believes in a god or gods and a gnostic believes that
knowledge of a god or gods existence is possible.
An atheist lacks this belief in gods (a->without) and the agnostic
(again a->without) believes that knowledge of a god or gods existence
is not possible.
So, one *can* be an agnostic atheist since they relate to two
different concepts.
Agnosticism does not represent a third middle position.
>
> But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> belief in its non existentiality.
The question of whether a god or gods exist or not is a question of
knowledge not belief.
>
> What is your opinion?
Trance Gemini
Just to clarify one point.
I do agree with those who are saying that in order for a baby to be
agnostic the baby has to have been exposed to the concept of a god or
gods and has to be capable of determining whether it believes that
knowledge of gods existence is possible or impossible.
So babies cannot be agnostic but they are atheist by definition
because atheism is simply a lack of belief which exists by default. It
is not a denial of god nor is it a disbelief in god or gods.
Those who are theist and then become atheist are the only one's who
are making a rational choice/decision to become atheist.
Many of us were born and remained atheists and only refer to ourselves
as such *because* theism exists and we are not theists.
Mike Jones
[...]
> So babies cannot be agnostic but they are atheist by definition because
> atheism is simply a lack of belief which exists by default.
Be definition from the perspective of those doing the defining.
This is different to "IS an atheist".
Don't get the two confused, as so many do.
Mike Jones
[...]
>
> Babies who don't get taught to be theist remain atheist.
>
"Atheistic" Until exposed to theism, one doesn't need the handle "not-a"
Atheistic is, even then, still a definition initially created by, well,
creationists. ;)
[...]
>
> But what is annoying is that the question assumes that somebody else's
> religious belief is the norm, and is as important in its absence as it
> is for the theist.
Don't get me started on that one! (As in, I think we agree.)
Mike Jones
[...]
> An atheist is someone capable of being a theist who is not a theist.
You shoulda stopped just there.
I've never seen it put so well in so few words.
Mike Jones
[...]
>>being theist - so they are certainly "not theist" - but neither are they
>>atheist.
>
> If they lack a god belief, they are atheist.
AtheisTIC. Thats a property, not a state of being, which "atheist" is.
Its still a skewed perspective cause by theistic nonsense though. Without
theism, non of this "is\isn't" polor definitions would be needed nor
exist. Remove the gotbotian insanity and the whole game vanishes.
In the case of your statement here, the bricks of my house are atheists.
Mike Jones
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:33:59 -0700 (PDT), harsha <harsh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
>>Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>>
>>I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
>>without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this Theistic
>>claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with. But he claims that they are
>>born with a lack of belief in existence of God and also lack of belief
>>in non existence of God which makes them Agnostics.
>>
> People are born with a blank slate and the ability to learn and reason.
> Lack of belief in superstitious nonsense or faith in invisible monsters
> are a acquired behaviors. Unfortunately for many children, their
> behaviors are acquired through religious brain washing...which should be
> a crime.
>
It surely is. The problem is that its not prosecuted.
phil k.
Telling children lies about a Santa Claus who brings presents at
Christmas and the obvious "You've got to behave good or he will punish
you" stories.
Just look at the lyrics of this song, and you know why Santa Claus is the
perfect analogy to the Judahite God:
You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town
He's making a list,
Checking it twice;
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake
With little tin horns and little toy drums
Rooty toot toots and rummy tum tums
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake
Goodness sake
You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
I'm telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming
Santa Claus is coming
Santa Claus is coming to town
(Coming to town)
Santa's a busy man he has no time to play
He's got millions of stockings to fill on Christmas day
(Santa Claus is coming to town)
(Coming to town)
(Santa Claus is coming to town)
(Coming to town)
And I'm still not over the fact, that people are singing this in a
*happy* tune ... this is one of the most horrofying songs ever written!
Alex W.
wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:22:25 -0700 (PDT), Richo
> <m.richa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 26, 7:33�pm, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
>>> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>>>
>>> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
>>> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
>>> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>>
>>I don't agree with the application of the definition of atheist to
>>beings not *capable* of belief.
>>A complete innocent - someone who has never heard of God cannot
>>believe or disbelieve - the concept doesn't apply.
>>So a baby, a rock or a tomato cannot be a theist nor can it be an
>>atheist.
>
> The a- prefix makes it binary. They are certainly not theist.
>
> They are TRIVIALLY atheist.
>
> Why keep ignoring the "trivially"?
>
> The day they discover that theists exist, their state of not believing
> in something doesn't change.
>
> All that happens is that the fact that people believe something, gets
> added to their experience base.
The point here is neither belief or the absence thereof but
the capacity for either.
It may be technically correct to refer to a baby as atheist,
but it is misleading because "X is an atheist" is a
statement on a person's worldview -- which a baby is
incapable of.
>
>>> But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
>>> God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
>>> Agnostics.
>>>
>>
>>No that's wrong.
>>Agnosticism is a belief about knowledge and the possibility of
>>knowledge.
>>
>>> But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
>>> it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
>>> belief in its non existentiality.
>>>
>>> What is your opinion?
>>
>>To describe a rock as a non smoker - because it doesn't smoke or as a
>>vegetarian - because it doesn't eat meat - or an atheist because it
>>doesn't believe in god - is to apply labels and concepts to things
>>outside their scope - its just gibberish.
>
> People wouldn't describe rocks as atheists or non-smokers unless some
> idiot raised the context of them being smokers or theists.
>
> Which usually happens when they can't grasp that kids don't believe
> until they are taught to, and that if they aren't taught it they
> remain in exactly the same sate of not believing that they were born
> with.
Let's not forget the distinct possibility of environmental
absorption. A great deal of the knowledge that kids learn
is acquired by osmosis, by observing adults and their
surroundings and internalising whatever information or
behavioural cues they glean from that. This would not
constitute active teaching, but it can and does open the
door widely to a diffuse awareness of something other,
supernatural. And as much as you may wish to deny this, it
remains a fact that our society and culture -- as much as
any other -- is suffused with religious cues, with hints and
references to divine beings, with pointers to belief and
worship which are inevitably incorporated into the worldview
of children as they are being socialised and accultured.
They may decide not to accept them at face value, they may
even decide to reject them outright, but they still ave to
live with them because they form an integral part of their
cultural language.
I also suspect you underestimate basic human psychology. As
a species, we are frightfully credulous. We are disposed by
natural inclination to give credence to all manner of
intangibles, unprovables and the plain impossible to the
point where we will let such beliefs influence if not even
dictate our behaviour and choices. The fact therefore that
someone does not subscribe to the organised belief in a
deity does not by itself make that person any more rational
than a god-botherer, nor does it deny the fundamental aspect
of his psyche which is programmed to believe in the
existence of something, anything, outside our direct
observation and reality. The difference between believing
in guardian angels, Lady Luck or Murphy's Law and declaring
one's affiliation to a church/temple/mosque is one of degree
of organisation, no more.
fasgnadh
> On Jun 26, 7:33 pm, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
>> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
>> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
Much as we are tempted to agree that an atheist is ANY NON SENTIENT
entity, and that, for example, dog shit and snot are among the MOST
INTELLIGENT of these REAL atheists, we must, in the interests of logic
and humour, ridicule their stupidity and mock them to oblivion! B^]
As we have been doing this for MONTHS it is most gratifying
to see that, as on every topic, atheists are forced by
the powerful logic of my rational arguments to AGREE with me: B^D
# >>> If they don't have a god belief then they are atheist.
#
# rocks, trees, grains of sand on the beach and my dog, Deefa
# don't have a god belief, according to these atheist CRETINS,
# that makes them Atheists!
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA!
#
# At least those sub-epsilon atheist morons recognise their
# INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORS!
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAHAHAAHHAHA!
#
# EVERYTHING, that has an IQ small enough not to be able to
# form a belief!!!!
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA
#
# Watching atheists debate is like watching 'tards
# compare their lobotomy scars to see which one had
# the most brain removed;
#
# Dog shit and Used Tampons,
# Smegma and Snot all lack 'a God belief'
#
# > Are they god believers? No?
#
# No.
#
# > Then they are atheist.
# >
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
#
# Atheism's FINEST!!!!!
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
Losing support since the days when atheist states terrorised tortured
and murdered tens of millions of victims, atheists are frantic to boost
their numbers any way they can.. but claiming a lump of shit
is an atheist is really desperate! B^)
EVEN IF VIRGIL AND SYD PROVE ITS TRUE!!!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAA
> I don't agree with the application of the definition of atheist to
> beings not *capable* of belief.
Well done Richo, you demonstrate that there is at least ONE
intelligent atheist capable of understanding the issue and
following my intellectual leadership! B^)
> A complete innocent - someone who has never heard of God cannot
> believe or disbelieve - the concept doesn't apply.
You even mimic my early examples, the 'Rock Atheists', among the
most intelligent and lively of all atheists; B^D
> So a baby, a rock or a tomato cannot be a theist nor can it be an
> atheist.
>
>> But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
>> God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
>> Agnostics.
>>
>
> No that's wrong.
Of course it is.
We have already established that Atheism is a BELIEF, without proof,
that God does not exist, just as theism is a belief that he does,
or in the case of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, KRSNA, The Bab,
Baha'u'llah, Zoroaster and the Prophets, a knowledge gained from
direct revelation, which has been tested in history and found to be genuine.
Agnosticism is similarly a rational position, admitting that proof
either way is not easy or conclusive, but that it is possible to prove
God exists but impossible to prove God does not exist.
I like the agnostics, like atheists, they DON'T KNOW, but unlike
atheists, they ADMIT THEY DON'T KNOW!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
Still the important point is that, as in every argument in alt.atheism,
my cogent and rational viewpoint is being adopted, even by the atheists,
those few of them capable of rational thought, and dominates the discussion;
>> But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
>> it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
>> belief in its non existentiality.
>>
>> What is your opinion?
>
> To describe a rock as a non smoker - because it doesn't smoke or as a
> vegetarian - because it doesn't eat meat - or an atheist because it
> doesn't believe in god - is to apply labels and concepts to things
> outside their scope - its just gibberish.
>
> Mark.
Well done Richo, for coming to share a RATIONAL agreement with my
position set out MONTHS AGO.. unfortunately as we can all see,
the MAJORITY of atheists, desperate to recruit every infant, rock,
tree, tampon and dog turd to inflate your pathetic numbers, won't give
up their IRRATIONAL and UNPROVABLE **BELIEF**
As this thread shows, the SCHISM in Atheist beliefs is deep and
growing wider! B^D
# Subject: Re: US religious now at 85% - It's GOD in a LANDSLIDE!!!
# -Atheists wallow at 2.3% worldwide, 0.7% in the USA! -a pitiful
# fraction of the minority of non-believers! B^D
#
# From: fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au>
# Newsgroups:
# alt.atheism,aus.religion,alt.religion,aus.politics,
# alt.politics.republicans, alt.politics.democrats,uk.politics.misc
# Message-ID: <8QNtl.26734$cu.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
# Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:07:32 GMT
#
# American Religious Identification Survey, Summary Report March 2009:
#
# "Self-identification of U.S. Adult Population by Religious Tradition
#
# 2001 2008
#
# Religious 167,254,000 (80%) 182,198,000 (80%)
#
# Agnostics 991,000 (0.5%) 1,985,000 (0.9%)
#
# Atheists 902,000 (0.4%) 1,621,000 (0.7%)
#
#
#
# BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA!
#
#
# 0.7% of Americans!! B^D 2.3% worldwide!!! B^D
#
# 'NON-RELIGIOUS' DOES NOT = ATHEIST, YOU DISHONEST CRETINS!
#
#
# EVEN THE AGNOSTICS BEAT YOU!!! **AND** they grew FASTER!!!! B^D
---------
Atheists have already ADMITTED atheism is a BELIEF:
# Bertrand Russell admitted he was an agnostic because there was
# no PROOF that God did not exist and no way it could be proved;
#
# "In his 1949 speech, "Am I an Atheist or an Agnostic?",
# Russell expressed his difficulty over whether to call
# himself an atheist or an agnostic:
#
# "As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely
# philosophic audience I should say that I ought to
# describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think
# that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove
# that there is not a God."
# It's Official, Atheists claim to be a persecuted RELIGION: B^D
#
#
# "THE Atheist Foundation of Australia has lodged complaints
# of religious discrimination in Melbourne and Hobart
# after being refused permission to put atheist
# advertising on buses." - The Age 29/1/2009
#
# "atheism counts as a religion, though we say
# we're not one," Dr Perkins said."
---------
"Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's
right to start study group
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874
"
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin
prison officials violated an inmate's rights because
they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that
he wanted to start was religious in nature even though
it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the
7th Circuit Court of Appeals said."
Now all it needs is a REFORMATION to drag it out
of the Dark Age of irrational superstition, as
was evidenced in EVERY Atheist regime, and into the
Modern Era!
---------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7842769.stm
An atheist UK bus campaign which uses the slogan
"There's probably no God, So Don't Worry, Be Happy"
has been found by the Advertising Standards Authority
to be OPINIONS which cannot be objectively substantiated!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHA
"the ASA ruled the adverts were an expression of the advertiser's
opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective
substantiation."
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
It's just as I said.. Atheists have BELIEFS, they put them on bus signs!
And they CAN'T PROVE THEM!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!
PRICELESS!
# "it makes utterly no difference which goddesses or gods
# you believe in, as long as you have some...
# Me, I'd suggest Bastet." - Cary Kittrell
#
# (has he misspelled 'Kitten'? ;-)
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Richo leads the Progressive Atheists who finally agree with fasgnadh:
> > On Jun 26, 7:33 pm, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> >> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> >> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>
>
> Much as we are tempted
Fasgnadh, as usual, yields to the unchristian temptation to exhibit his
unreasoning hatreds publicly.
But those hatreds hurt no one but himself.
--
Virgil
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:41:59 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
>wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:22:25 -0700 (PDT), Richo
>> <m.richa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 26, 7:33�pm, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
>>>> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>>>>
>>>> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
>>>> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
>>>> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>>>
>>>I don't agree with the application of the definition of atheist to
>>>beings not *capable* of belief.
>>>A complete innocent - someone who has never heard of God cannot
>>>believe or disbelieve - the concept doesn't apply.
>>>So a baby, a rock or a tomato cannot be a theist nor can it be an
>>>atheist.
>>
>> The a- prefix makes it binary. They are certainly not theist.
>>
>> They are TRIVIALLY atheist.
>>
>> Why keep ignoring the "trivially"?
Well?
>> The day they discover that theists exist, their state of not believing
>> in something doesn't change.
Well?
>> All that happens is that the fact that people believe something, gets
>> added to their experience base.
Well?
>The point here is neither belief or the absence thereof but
>the capacity for either.
No. The point is that the a- makes it binary.
And that newborns are TRIVIALLY atheist.
>It may be technically correct to refer to a baby as atheist,
>but it is misleading because "X is an atheist" is a
>statement on a person's worldview -- which a baby is
>incapable of.
WHY LEAVE OUT THE "TRIVIALLY"?
As well as the fact that plenty of atheists here are as atheist as the
day they were born because they weren't taught to be theist.
So they haven't anything to "believe doesn't exist", "not believe
exists" or "be agnostic about".
Yet they are still atheists because they are not theist.
>>>> But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
>>>> God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
>>>> Agnostics.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No that's wrong.
>>>Agnosticism is a belief about knowledge and the possibility of
>>>knowledge.
>>>
>>>> But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
>>>> it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
>>>> belief in its non existentiality.
>>>>
>>>> What is your opinion?
>>>
>>>To describe a rock as a non smoker - because it doesn't smoke or as a
>>>vegetarian - because it doesn't eat meat - or an atheist because it
>>>doesn't believe in god - is to apply labels and concepts to things
>>>outside their scope - its just gibberish.
>>
>> People wouldn't describe rocks as atheists or non-smokers unless some
>> idiot raised the context of them being smokers or theists.
>>
>> Which usually happens when they can't grasp that kids don't believe
>> until they are taught to, and that if they aren't taught it they
>> remain in exactly the same sate of not believing that they were born
>> with.
WHICH DESCRIBES MANY OF US HERE INCLUDING ME.
>Let's not forget the distinct possibility of environmental
Let's listen to atheists describing themselves for a change.
>absorption. A great deal of the knowledge that kids learn
>is acquired by osmosis, by observing adults and their
>surroundings and internalising whatever information or
>behavioural cues they glean from that. This would not
>constitute active teaching, but it can and does open the
>door widely to a diffuse awareness of something other,
>supernatural. And as much as you may wish to deny this, it
>remains a fact that our society and culture -- as much as
>any other -- is suffused with religious cues, with hints and
ONLY IF YOU ARE RAISED AROUND THEISTS. WHICH MANY OF US WEREN'T.
>references to divine beings, with pointers to belief and
>worship which are inevitably incorporated into the worldview
>of children as they are being socialised and accultured.
>They may decide not to accept them at face value, they may
>even decide to reject them outright, but they still ave to
>live with them because they form an integral part of their
>cultural language.
Why do you imagine they have anything to decide?
>I also suspect you underestimate basic human psychology. As
I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.
Because whether you like it or not, children who weren't taught to
betheist remain in exactly the same state of not believing that they
were born with.
You don't seem to realise that this describes quite a lot of regulars
here. For whom there was no choice.
INCLUDING ME.
>a species, we are frightfully credulous. We are disposed by
>natural inclination to give credence to all manner of
>intangibles, unprovables and the plain impossible to the
>point where we will let such beliefs influence if not even
>dictate our behaviour and choices. The fact therefore that
>someone does not subscribe to the organised belief in a
>deity does not by itself make that person any more rational
>than a god-botherer, nor does it deny the fundamental aspect
>of his psyche which is programmed to believe in the
>existence of something, anything, outside our direct
>observation and reality. The difference between believing
>in guardian angels, Lady Luck or Murphy's Law and declaring
>one's affiliation to a church/temple/mosque is one of degree
>of organisation, no more.
All of which is irrelevant to the facts about MANY OF US HERE
INCLUDING ME that I shouldn't need to keep repeating..
Alan Ford
> It may be technically correct to refer to a baby as atheist,
> but it is misleading because "X is an atheist" is a
> statement on a person's worldview -- which a baby is
> incapable of.
But then you quickly run into a philosophical conundrum - at which point
is a person "capable" of being a theist? When he's two? Four? Ten? Sixteen?
At which point do you draw a line and say "clearly now this child is
capable of having a worldview of his own and from this day on we can
call him either a theist or an atheist"?
Does intelligence play a role in determining this, as well? Some people
are clearly way more intelligent than others who are barely able to tie
their shoes, let alone entertain such thought-requiring complicated
processes as having a worldview. The latter tend to blindly accept what
they've been told by others, hence their belief in gods. Hardly a
worldview, yet, here we are...
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
fasgnadh
> fasgnadh wrote:
>> harsha wrote:
>>> I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
>>> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>>>
>>> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
>>> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
>>> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>>>
>>
>> Much as we are tempted to agree that an atheist is ANY NON SENTIENT
>> entity, and that, for example, dog shit and snot are among the MOST
>> and humour, ridicule your stupidity and mock you to oblivion! B^]
>>
>> As we have been doing for MONTHS: B^D
Thanks, even atheists are now agreeing with my impeccable logic; Mark
Richo, clearly one of the more intelligent atheists agrees with my
logic, stated MONTHS AGO..
How are you bitterly divided atheist shills going to resolve
this deep schism in your beliefs???
> Don't expect real answers
From you, of course not , you will snip all the argument,
as you just did then, leaving only unreadable fragments
where I am laughing at the atheist Schism, and then just make more
asinine, unsubstantiated ASSERTIONS which don't even address
the issue, you are a spent force, and a complete lightweight,
I will snip everything from you that has NOTHING to do with the
topic at hand to demonstrate proof of that claim:
<GIGO snip>
What the atheists are SCREECHING hysterically about and snipping
wildly as if sticking their heads up their arse makes the truth go
away, ...is that OTHER ATHEISTS NOW AGREE WITH ME!!; B^D
# From: Richo <m.richa...@gmail.com>
# Newsgroups: alt.atheism
# Subject: Re: Are people born as Atheists or as Agnostics?
# Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
# Message-ID:
# <b7407011-21e9-425d...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
#
# On Jun 26, 7:33=A0pm, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
#
# > Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
# > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
# > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
#
# I don't agree with the application of the definition of
# atheist to beings not *capable* of belief.
We need to distinguish the two sides of the mammoth Schism that
exists in atheism, those than believe a dog or a lump of dog
dog shit or Smegma or snot can be an atheist, [the Smegma Atheists] and
those who don't, the Free-Will Atheists!
# A complete innocent - someone who has never heard of God
# cannot believe or disbelieve - the concept doesn't apply.
# So a baby, a rock or a tomato cannot be a theist nor can it
# be an atheist.
Ritcho is ALMOST correct... but no one can KNOW what a baby experiences,
and so, if it FEELS God's love, if it experiences the nurturing power
of the binding force in the Universe, Love, then it KNOWS God, even if
in it's pre-verbal state it cannot CONCEPTUALISE it's experience.
But I throw that in only to give the Smegma atheists, who have already
lost the argument, and thus the claim on 99% of the worldwide atheist
membership, something fresh to impotently gnash their teeth on! B^D
# > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief
# >in existence of God and also lack of belief in non existence
# > of God which makes them Agnostics.
#
#
# No that's wrong.
# Agnosticism is a belief about knowledge and the possibility of
# knowledge.
#
#
# To describe a rock as a non smoker - because it doesn't
# smoke or as a vegetarian - because it doesn't eat meat
# - or an atheist because it doesn't believe in god - is to
# apply labels and concepts to things outside their scope
# - its just gibberish.
And most of the atheists believe it, Mark.. as this thread
and many more in alt.atheism demonstrate, you are amongst
fools and charlatans! B^]
Most of your potential allies in this fatal schism, are no longer
around to support you, only the Lunatic fringe of atheism is left,
because i have demolished the beliefs of all the former alt.atheism
champions and they have abandoned the field..
Where is Hypatia, Slimer, Bukakke, Kelsey Bjarnyardson.. et al/ B^]
...most of them no longer even post out of fear that I will demolish
their nonsense and publicly humiliate their backward beliefs.. all you
have left are the LUNATIC fringe, the forgers, fools and fops.. like
Virgil, zencyclops, raven and Syd! ;-)
The ones who are so dim, so bereft of judgement and moral integrity,
that they will ATTACK those who criticise the last remaining atheist
cluster-fuck, North Korea!!! 8^o
Abu Baker
Bashir: http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Napisan: http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Mark K. Dildo http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Kelsey
Bjarnyardson: http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Carey Kitten http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Bukakke: http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Hysteria: http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Jason Breen http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Aidan http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Lord Vetinari http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Uncle Vic http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Hatter http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Jason Breen http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Panama Fraud http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Bob Young http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Barb Lardarse http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Ravin http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
inSanity's
Little
Humper http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Kali: http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Seon: http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Syd: http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
Virgil http://www.humanisthall.net/Trophy3.jpg
The ones who are left are TOO STUPID to know when they are licked,
and just keep coming back to be lacerated and mocked to oblivion
---------
The case for atheist reformation has been established,
Atheism is IN SCHISM.
First we demonstrated that atheism is just an UNPROVEN belief,
now we see the factions and warring sects fighting one another,
in an era when RELIGIONS ARE MOVING TO GREATER UNITY! 8^o
Christopher A. Lee
>Alex W. wrote:
>
>> It may be technically correct to refer to a baby as atheist,
>> but it is misleading because "X is an atheist" is a
>> statement on a person's worldview -- which a baby is
>> incapable of.
>
>But then you quickly run into a philosophical conundrum - at which point
>is a person "capable" of being a theist? When he's two? Four? Ten? Sixteen?
>
>At which point do you draw a line and say "clearly now this child is
>capable of having a worldview of his own and from this day on we can
>call him either a theist or an atheist"?
Kids raised outside religion tend to think for themselves a lot
earlier than the religious ones because they do other, interesting
things.
>Does intelligence play a role in determining this, as well? Some people
>are clearly way more intelligent than others who are barely able to tie
>their shoes, let alone entertain such thought-requiring complicated
>processes as having a worldview. The latter tend to blindly accept what
>they've been told by others, hence their belief in gods. Hardly a
>worldview, yet, here we are...
Alex seems to ignore those atheists who were never taught to be
theist, and whose first encounter with them was when they were old
enough to think for themselves.
Like me.
He seems to think that this can't happen and that I am ignorant of
psychology.
My grand parents were atheist. and on one side great grandparents and
one great grand parent.
Religion was never mentioned.
The baby sitters were relatives.
My parents made sure I learned to read early, and that I had a thirst
for finding things out. For example if I asked my father something
he'd take me to an ancient Britannica set and we'd look it up - even
if he already knew it, I found out later.
But by the time I was eight I had read kids versions of the Greek and
other myths, Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen, as well as boys
science books, railway books etc.
So I could talk adult things with adults. As did other kids who didn't
listen to or watch baby programs like Thomas the Tank Engine. I wasn't
the only one.
All this before I came across my first religionist, a schoolteacher
who to put it bluntly was an idiot who asked the same sort of stupid
loaded questions we see here, thinking that a kid couldn't answer
them.
It's sad when a teacher knows less than a kid and spouts stupid
bullshit - I was amazed that I was supposed to take obvious myths
seriously. And gave her answers she didn't expect to her "who created
everything?". Including (when I realised she was serious) two
different theories for the formationof the Earth.
I'd read them in a boy's astronomy book whose author was a major
influence of my thinking - he'd said both theories fitted the
evidence, and there was no reason to choose one over he other because
either could be right - or they could both be wrong when we had more
information to work on.
I tried to explain this to her but couldn't get her to understand.
But the only difference it made to me, was that I realised some people
believed something I didn't.
She called me an atheist. A word I'd never heard before. But this was
a non-event before I emigrated to the USA where we face civil rights
and other issues because we're not part of the majority religion. I
never felt the need to connect with other atheists until then.
And I wasn't the only kid like this.
I've even met couples over here raising their kids this way - although
they were mostly immigrants living in Silicon Valley bedroom
communities. In places like that it is easier than in Middle America.
fasgnadh
> Responding to Richo:
>
>
> [...]
>> An atheist is someone capable of being a theist who is not a theist.
Exactly;
http://data5.blog.de/media/481/2584481_bdc195fac4_m.jpeg
There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE
>
> You shoulda stopped just there.
>
> I've never seen it put so well in so few words.
And the scriptures predict it:
42:18 Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see.
(King James Bible, Isaiah)
"Blind be the eye that seeth Thee not!"
(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 42)
35:5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the
deaf shall be unstopped.
(King James Bible, Isaiah)
For they who turn away from their Lord in this day are in truth
accounted amongst the dead, though to outward seeming they may walk upon
the earth, amongst the deaf, though they may hear, and amongst the
blind, though they may see, as hath been clearly stated by Him Who is
the Lord of the Day of Reckoning: "Hearts have they with which they
understand not, and eyes have they with which they see not
(Baha'u'llah, Gems of Divine Mysteries, p. 49)
The Believer
"Thus does Allah confound the unbelievers."
Sura [40.74]
EPHESIANS 5:8-14
(NIV) For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the
Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light
consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what
pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of
darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention
what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the
light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything
visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the
dead, and Christ will shine on you."
Ye that sleep, Awake!
ye heedless ones, Learn wisdom!
Blind, receive your sight!
Deaf, Hear!
Dumb, Speak!
Dead, Arise!
(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 126)
>
--
"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8295?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:8290?context=latest
"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:6348?context=latest
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17478?context=latest
"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin
http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/2182797:Photo:17475?context=latest
http://www.c96trading.com/Nagant_NKVD_300h.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01001/Tsar-family_1001874c.jpg
Immortalist
> > more lucid argument
>
> Thanks, even atheists are now agreeing with my impeccable logic; Mark
> Richo, clearly one of the more intelligent atheists agrees with my
> logic, stated MONTHS AGO..
>
> How are you bitterly divided atheist shills going to resolve
> this deep schism in your beliefs???
>
If you have logic behind you, you are not very good at it. I see many
logical fallacies in your argument, so many in fact it is hard to tell
what your argument even is. I will take you one, please state one
argument for me to thrash. I am the legendary troll destroyer,
welcome, present one to three arguments at a time.
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> zencycle snipped the cogent argument and ran, not one word on topic! :
> > fasgnadh wrote:
> >> harsha wrote:
> >>> I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> >>> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
> >>>
> >>> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> >>> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> >>> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> >>>
> >>> What is your opinion?
fasgnadh managed again to express too few ideas in too many words, and
none of them relevant.
--
Virgil
Virgil
fasgnadh <fasg...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >> An atheist is someone capable of being a theist who is not a theist.
Everyone is capable of being a fool, but only theists like fasgnadh
succeed in being fools so completely.
--
Virgil
Mr. �
have a natural Spirituality that comes with from aging and curiosity in other
human beings...
Religion, like racism and bigotry, is a learned behavior, the younger it is
tattooed or burned into the child's psyche or adolescent the harder it is to
ever change them back...
Shoving religion down a child's throat before they are old enough or mature
enough to reason and or think logically is CHILD ABUSE pure and simple...as
soon as AmericanÝ courts start prosecuting for this the sooner the world will
become a more rational place, well at least AmericanÝ will...
--
"Brainscrub some Christinsanity out today - save a nation tomorrow"
The Chief Instigator
>I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
>Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
>without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
>Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
>God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
>Agnostics.
>But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
>it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
>belief in its non existentiality.
>What is your opinion?
I got taken to church a few times (the earliest one I still have memories of
would have been when I was at least two, which would have been the summer of
1957), but as the '60s arrived, I'd had a baby sister for six months, so we
weren't going to church very often. We moved a bit farther southeast into
the Tulsa fringes the week after that little argument about Soviet missiles
in Cuba was finally settled, and I got to see Oral Roberts and his antics on
all three Tulsa stations at one time or another of a Sunday, and his antics
were already giving me the idea that it was one less than honest grab for
power over others not in the "right" religion or sect. By the time my
father's job moved us down to Houston in 1965, I was well on the way to
staking my patch of atheism.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Manitoba 3, Houston 1 (May 25: Moose advance, 4-2)
NEXT GAME: The 2009-10 opener in October, TBA
bob young
harsha wrote:
> I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
> I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> Agnostics.
>
> But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> belief in its non existentiality.
>
> What is your opinion?
That children are born innocent until 'The Holiest of Holies' gets hold
of them, then they become as sick as the rest. At least, thank goodness,
fewer and fewer do today, as we slowly progress towards universal sanity
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor)
Man creates his gods in his own image;
and then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N - it is all in the mind, an escape from life's realities
and hardships
R E L I G I O N - is also roughly sixty percent ritual plus forty percent
fantasy
bob young
Jimbo wrote:
> On Jun 26, 5:33 am, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
> >
> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> > Agnostics.
> >
> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> > belief in its non existentiality.
> >
> > What is your opinion?
>
> My Grandfather was a Baptist Minister, so as you can imagine I was
> indoctrinated at a very early age. I do remember though that even at
> the age of 4 or 5, the Christian Religion (and in later years any
> other religion) made absolutely no logical or intellectual sense.
> Oh, I went through all of the motions that were expected. I went to
> church, prayed, I even won contests for Bible Verse memorization and
> could recite whole books of the Bible by the time I was twelve, was
> Baptized, the whole nine yards, but I could never brought myself to
> believe it. It just seemed to primitive and bizarre. Still, I
> wanted to believe as the rest of my hometown seemed to believe, and
> studied religion for a while, both here and after my stint in the Navy
> I stayed in Israel and studied at the University of Tel Aviv for two
> years. Still, I found nothing that convinced me that God existed,
> and that the Bible was any more than a collection of folk fables. So
> now I'm 65 years old, and have never believed in the existence of a
> diety.
Soooo many of us went this route, and long may it last, as I'm sure it
will.
bob young
Jenny6833A wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2:33οΏ½am, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
> >
> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> > Agnostics.
> >
> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> > belief in its non existentiality.
> >
> > What is your opinion?
>
> As you state, everyone is born without beliefs of any kind. Thus,
> newborns are athests
No. . . . . . sorry - one has to be able to conceptualise the god scene to
become atheistic. Newly born humans are 'innocent'
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor)
Man creates his gods in his own image;
and then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N - it is all in the mind, an escape from life's realities
and hardships
R E L I G I O N - is also roughly sixty percent ritual plus forty percent
fantasy
> (they lack belief in a god or gods) but they are
> not agnostics. Agnosticism is itself a belief. Agnostic: One who
> believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
>
> :-)
>
> Jenny
bob young
Robibnikoff wrote:
> "harsha" <harsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fba12dad-8ae7-44d4...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
> >I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
> >
> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>
> Correct
Nope - they are not atheists, they are 'innocents'
You first think about atheism when someone tries to shove religion down
your throat, most kids need to be six or more for that.
>
> --
> Robyn
> Resident Witchypoo
> BAAWA Knight
> #1557
bob young
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" wrote:
> harsha wrote:
> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
> >
> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> > Agnostics.
> >
> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> > belief in its non existentiality.
> >
> > What is your opinion?
> >
> An atheist is someone who is not theist. No belief needed for that.
> Since all infants are incapable of understanding, much less practicing,
> any form of theism, they are without theism.
>
> Ergo, everyone is born an atheist.
Nope - you cannot reject relgion until you learn about it from another
human, so you ain't born that way.
All of us are born 'innocent'
>
>
> --
> There are none more ignorant and useless,
> than they that seek answers on their knees,
> with their eyes closed.
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
> http://azhotops.blogspot.com
> A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology
>
> Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
> ____________________________________________________________________
Alan Ford
> How about we are all born Athnostics? Don't beLIEve in a Christstain God but
> have a natural Spirituality that comes with from aging and curiosity in other
> human beings...
That's not what agnosticism is. Also, what the hell is "natural
Spirituality"?
I have curiosity in other human beings, namely women, so am I now spiritual?
bob young
AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:56:39 -0700 (PDT), Richo <m.richa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 26, 10:08?pm, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktaylo...@getnet.net>
> >wrote:
> >> harsha wrote:
> >> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> >> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
> >>
> >> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> >> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> >> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> >> > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> >> > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> >> > Agnostics.
> >>
> >> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> >> > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> >> > belief in its non existentiality.
> >>
> >> > What is your opinion?
> >>
> >> An atheist is someone who is not theist.
>
> >I don't believe this really works.
>
> >An atheist is someone capable of being a theist who is not a theist.
>
> >We don't usually bother putting in the "capable of being" part because
> >it is implicit - assumed.
> >Terms only apply within certain domains - the universe of discourse -
> >and outside those domains their use generates nonsense or possibly
> >poetry. 8-)
>
> >Dead people, unconscious people and new born babies are not capable of
> >being theist - so they are certainly "not theist" - but neither are
> >they atheist.
>
> If they lack a god belief, they are atheist.
No atheism is not 'lack of' anything, atheism is rejecting gods
and you cannot be born that way, until some creep tells you about one; and you need
to be at least six years old for that
bob young
fasgnadh wrote:
> Mike Jones wrote:
> > Responding to Richo:
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >> An atheist is someone capable of being a theist who is not a theist.
>
> Exactly;
>
> http://data5.blog.de/media/481/2584481_bdc195fac4_m.jpeg
>
> There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT SEE
Ooooh you mean those who wax lyrical over this kind of childish nonsense:
The universe revolves around the earth.
Stars are pinpricks in the heavens.
The world is flat (and on pillars)
Bats are a kind of bird.
Rabbits chew their cud.
There is enough water to flood the entire planet
Women were created from a man's rib
Rainbows are a promise from God
[Acknowledgments to 'James, Seattle']
You are quite right, they are blind, blinded by mass hysteria - fastnerd
At least you get some things right some of the time . . . !
bob young
Virgil wrote:
> succeed in being fools so completely. . . . . .
. . . . . . and on a daily basis !
>
>
> --
> Virgil
Alan Ford
>> As you state, everyone is born without beliefs of any kind. Thus,
>> newborns are athests
>
> No. . . . . . sorry - one has to be able to conceptualise the god scene to
> become atheistic. Newly born humans are 'innocent'
Are babies smokers on non-smokers? Stupid question, right, but it is no
different from asking if babies are theist or atheist.
The answer, of course, is that babies are non-smokers, as well as atheist.
They will never light up a Marlboro on their own, and the first thing
they'll do when they pop out of a uterus is cry, not profess an unbelief
in Jesus. Still, they don't smoke - they're non-smokers.
They don't believe in gods - they're atheists.
It doesn't matter how silly applying these two concepts to babies are.
Trivially, that's what they are.
bob young
fasgnadh wrote:
> harsha wrote:
> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
> >
> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> >
> > What is your opinion?
>
> Much as we are tempted to agree that an atheist is ANY NON SENTIENT
> entity, and that, for example, dog shit and snot are among the MOST
> INTELLIGENT of these real atheists, we must, in the interests of logic
> and humour, ridicule your stupidity and mock you to oblivion! B^]
Oh absolutely . . . I mean, after all, we atheists would never follow such things as this
would we . . . . . . .
The universe revolves around the earth.
Stars are pinpricks in the heavens.
The world is flat (and on pillars)
Bats are a kind of bird.
Rabbits chew their cud.
There is enough water to flood the entire planet
Women were created from a man's rib
Rainbows are a promise from God
[Acknowledgements to 'James, Seattle']
Alan Ford
> No atheism is not 'lack of' anything, atheism is rejecting gods
You're wrong there. Atheism is simply opposite of theism - a lack of
belief in gods. I don't see why you need to re-label it to "rejecting".
If I don't believe in Jesus or Santa Claus or vampires, I am not
rejecting anything - I simply don't believe that shit.
I may reject the inevitable theists' efforts to impose their view, laws
and "morality" on me, but that's beyond the scope of atheism.
> and you cannot be born that way, until some creep tells you about one; and you need
> to be at least six years old for that
bob young
zencycle wrote:
> On Jun 26, 9:30 am, fagsnads spewed:
>
> more lucid argument
>
> > # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA!
> > #
> > # At least those sub-epsilon atheist morons recognise their
> > # INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORS!
> > #
> > # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAAHAHAAHHAHA!
> > #
> > # EVERYTHING, that has an IQ small enough not to be able to
> > # form a belief!!!!
> > #
> > # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA
> > #
> > #
> > # Dog shit and Used Tampons,
> > # Smegma and Snot all lack 'a God belief'
> > #
> > # > Are they god believers? No?
> > #
> > # No.
> > #
> > # > Then they are atheist.
> > # >
> # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
> > #
> > # Atheism's FINEST!!!!!
> > # BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
> >
> > claiming a lump of shit
> > is an atheist is really desperate! B^)
> >
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAA
> >
>
> Don't expect real answers from faggsie....
>
> Faggsie has run repeatedly from me when presented with facts and
> alternate interpretations of scripture.
>
> He claims to have railed against the Iranian gvt when they imprisoned
> Roxana Saberi, yet when I challenged him to produce his screed, I was
> met with silence.
>
> I've proved him wring in that muslims no longer practice stonings, and
> that Laura Ling and Euna Lee issued press releases saying they were
> kidnapped. These were met with changing the subject.
>
> I've chased faggsie from north korea to saudi arabia, and the best he
> can come up with "bwaaaaaa!"
>
> Fagsnads - just another deluded religious tool.
. . . . . . and best avided like The Plague, as much as possible.
Aaah - That Plague - it killed half the population in the 1600's and what
was it the priests of the time were telling the populace ?
"We are all dying because God is punishing us for our sins"
Only hundreds of years later humans discovered the rat/flea/virus
connection that caused this scourge of humanity.
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor)
Man creates his gods in his own image;
and then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N - it is all in the mind, an escape from life's realities
and hardships
R E L I G I O N - is roughly sixty percent ritual and forty percent
fantasy
bob young
Immortalist wrote:
> >
> > > more lucid argument
> >
> > Thanks, even atheists are now agreeing with my impeccable logic;
thanks for the joke of the year
bob young
Uncle Vic wrote:
> One fine day in alt.atheism, harsha <harsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
> >
> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> > Agnostics.
> >
> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> > belief in its non existentiality.
> >
> > What is your opinion?
> >
>
> Ask him whether he was born with a lack of belief in leprechauns. A
> person cannot proclaim no knowledge of god (agnosticism) if he has no
> knowledge of the concept of god, therefore he is wrong.
Absolutely, spot on, Unc.
>
>
> --
> Uncle Vic
> aa Atheist #2011
> Separator of Church and Reason.
> Convicted by Earthquack.
> Looking forward to May 21, 2012 or is it 2011? Or is it sometime in
> December? These idiots can't even agree...
bob young
Immortalist wrote:
> >
> > > more lucid argument
> >
> > Thanks, even atheists are now agreeing with my impeccable logic . . .
> .
. . . . you are obviously not just an idiot, but an arrogant idiot to
boot.
<PLONK>
bob young
John Locke wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 02:33:59 -0700 (PDT), harsha
> <harsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> >Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
> >
> >I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> >without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> >Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> >But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> >God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> >Agnostics.
> >
> People are born with a blank slate and the ability to learn and
> reason. Lack of belief in superstitious nonsense or faith in invisible
> monsters are a acquired behaviors. Unfortunately for many children,
> their behaviors are acquired through religious brain washing...which
> should be a crime.
When humanity has progressed far enough let us hope it will indeed become
a crime.
Problem is religionists will, long before that, wipe humanity off the face
of the earth by inter religious wars, nuclear wars.
They are doing it now with conventional bombs in Iraq, the other horror
awaiting us is just a matter of time,
Humanity *gone* - all in the names of imaginary gods.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> If Jesus had been killed 20 years ago, Catholic school
> children would be wearing little Electric Chairs around
> their necks instead of crosses." [Lenny Bruce]
Uncle Vic
wrote:
>
>
> Uncle Vic wrote:
>
>> One fine day in alt.atheism, harsha <harsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying
>> > on Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>> >
>> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is
>> > born without any idea of God until they are first introduced to
>> > this Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>> > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence
>> > of God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes
>> > them Agnostics.
>> >
>> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and
>> > until it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as
>> > a lack of belief in its non existentiality.
>> >
>> > What is your opinion?
>> >
>>
>> Ask him whether he was born with a lack of belief in leprechauns. A
>> person cannot proclaim no knowledge of god (agnosticism) if he has no
>> knowledge of the concept of god, therefore he is wrong.
>
> Absolutely, spot on, Unc.
>
Thanks! ;-)
bob young
Trance Gemini wrote:
> On Jun 26, 5:33 am, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
> >
> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> > Agnostics.
>
> You are correct and he's incorrect.
>
> Theism relates to Belief and Gnosticism relates to Knowledge.
>
> So a theist believes in a god or gods and a gnostic believes that
> knowledge of a god or gods existence is possible.
>
> An atheist lacks
No not quite - the words should be 'rejects' not 'lacks' which changes the
whole thing.
A new born lacks all knowledge
> this belief in gods (a->without) and the agnostic
> (again a->without) believes that knowledge of a god or gods existence
> is not possible.
>
> So, one *can* be an agnostic atheist since they relate to two
> different concepts.
>
> Agnosticism does not represent a third middle position.
>
> >
> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> > belief in its non existentiality.
>
> The question of whether a god or gods exist or not is a question of
> knowledge not belief.
>
> >
> > What is your opinion?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>
>Jenny6833A wrote:
>
>> On Jun 26, 2:33??�am, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
>> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>> >
>> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
>> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
>> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>> > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
>> > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
>> > Agnostics.
>> >
>> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
>> > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
>> > belief in its non existentiality.
>> >
>> > What is your opinion?
>>
>> As you state, everyone is born without beliefs of any kind. Thus,
>> newborns are athests
>
>No. . . . . . sorry - one has to be able to conceptualise the god scene to
>become atheistic. Newly born humans are 'innocent'
Bullshit. You know perfectly well that all it takes is not to be
theist.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>
Bullshit. All it takes to be athjeist is not being theist. There are
plenty of us here who were never taught to be theist.
John Baker
wrote:
>>
>> Fagsnads - just another deluded religious tool.
>
> . . . . . . and best avided like The Plague, as much as possible.
Which is exactly why many of us, myself included, killfiled him ages
ago. Please, people, stop feeding this troll's ego by replying to his
idiocy.
Christopher A. Lee
>bob young wrote:
>
>>> As you state, everyone is born without beliefs of any kind. Thus,
>>> newborns are athests
>>
>> No. . . . . . sorry - one has to be able to conceptualise the god scene to
>> become atheistic. Newly born humans are 'innocent'
>
>
>Are babies smokers on non-smokers? Stupid question, right, but it is no
>different from asking if babies are theist or atheist.
>The answer, of course, is that babies are non-smokers, as well as atheist.
>They will never light up a Marlboro on their own, and the first thing
>they'll do when they pop out of a uterus is cry, not profess an unbelief
>in Jesus. Still, they don't smoke - they're non-smokers.
>They don't believe in gods - they're atheists.
>It doesn't matter how silly applying these two concepts to babies are.
>Trivially, that's what they are.
Yep. It's a rhetorical trick to dismiss the fact that atheism (not
being theist) is the default because if kids aren't introduced to
theism before they can think for themselves, they remain in the
default state of not believing.
The case of babies being atheist is important for this reason.
Because the believers who dismiss it, imagine that everybody is raised
theist and seem incapable of grasping that plenty of us weren't.
Atheist/theist is binary, either one is theist or one isn't.
It says plenty of unflattering things about people who bring up rocks,
armchairs etc. But once they have done that, these are trivially
atheist.
It also says plenty about people who ignore the "trivially" especially
when this has already been pointed out.
Alex W.
wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:31:32 -0700, Alan Ford <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote:
>
>>bob young wrote:
>>
>>>> As you state, everyone is born without beliefs of any kind. Thus,
>>>> newborns are athests
>>>
>>> No. . . . . . sorry - one has to be able to conceptualise the god scene to
>>> become atheistic. Newly born humans are 'innocent'
>>
>>
>>Are babies smokers on non-smokers? Stupid question, right, but it is no
>>different from asking if babies are theist or atheist.
>>The answer, of course, is that babies are non-smokers, as well as atheist.
>>They will never light up a Marlboro on their own, and the first thing
>>they'll do when they pop out of a uterus is cry, not profess an unbelief
>>in Jesus. Still, they don't smoke - they're non-smokers.
>>They don't believe in gods - they're atheists.
>>It doesn't matter how silly applying these two concepts to babies are.
>>Trivially, that's what they are.
>
> Yep. It's a rhetorical trick to dismiss the fact that atheism (not
> being theist) is the default because if kids aren't introduced to
> theism before they can think for themselves, they remain in the
> default state of not believing.
>
> The case of babies being atheist is important for this reason.
>
> Because the believers who dismiss it, imagine that everybody is raised
> theist and seem incapable of grasping that plenty of us weren't.
Define "plenty".
Seriously.
You are trying to establish atheism as the base state of
humanity, when all of history and current affairs tells us
that sadly, this is not so. Even now, after centuries of
advancing science, technology and capitalism in the Western
world has made rationalism the dominant philosophy, atheism
in the US is barely edging into the double digits. In terms
of comparative size, atheists are far from "plenty". We are
a small minority, and always have been.
Alex W.
wrote:
> On 27 Jun 2009 00:22:01 -0500, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com>
Is this the right time to point out that theism requires the
belief in at least one deity but that there are religions
out there which make do without one?
To say that a child is born an atheist makes it perfectly
legitimate to claim that all newborns are Buddhist. Sound
silly? It is silly (except for the reincarnated soul of the
Dalai Lama, of course). And so it is silly to call them
"atheist", whether trivially or not.
Alex W.
> bob young wrote:
>
>> No atheism is not 'lack of' anything, atheism is rejecting gods
>
> You're wrong there. Atheism is simply opposite of theism - a lack of
> belief in gods. I don't see why you need to re-label it to "rejecting".
You're both wrong.
Atheism may be a lack of belief or an affirmative rejection,
either weak or strong.
Atheism involves an unbelief in both deities *and* religion.
No sane person would describe Buddhism as an atheist
philosophy even though they have no gods.
Mr. �
>> Mr. Ý wrote:
>
>> How about we are all born Athnostics? Don't beLIEve in a Christstain God
>> but have a natural Spirituality that comes with from aging and curiosity in
>> other human beings...
>
> That's not what agnosticism is. Also, what the hell is "natural
> Spirituality"? I have curiosity in other human beings, namely
> women, so am I now spiritual?
AbsoSLUTely ; ) err, I mean..."namely" you say? Rupaul do anything for you?
I guess if you've never wondered why humans are different than other animal
species, how and why we connect in the way we do then I guess you're just
plain fucking weird...
Who said anything in this reply, besides you, about "agnosticism" anyway?
If you have a conscience then you have a "god" whether you acknowledge it,
see it, want it or like it ... if you got no conscience most anyone would
call you godless or evil.
Most idiotic Christastains had the fear of their god beat into them as little
sponges that couldn't complete a sentence because of their young ages and
they either live in fear their entire lives or they reject jesus, most likely
any and all religion, outright.
If you got no conscience and don't beLIEve in anything then you must be one
lost puppy, even worse then ChrisÝsÝain Ýypes (no 'sÝain Ýypo bÝw)
--
Catholicism is nothing more than a *fairy tail* connected
to a *queer monster* known as Theocracy...
https://www.cafepress.com/YbeLIEve
Got Conscience?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Have difficulty reading for comprehension?
Trance Gemini
> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
> [...]
>
> > So babies cannot be agnostic but they are atheist by definition because
> > atheism is simply a lack of belief which exists by default.
>
> Be definition from the perspective of those doing the defining.
>
> This is different to "IS an atheist".
>
> Don't get the two confused, as so many do.
There is only one definition of atheism, "lack of belief in god(s)" so
how does "from the perspective of those doing the defining" apply
here?
>
> --
> *===(http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
> *===(http://principiadiscordia.com/
> *===(http://www.slackware.com/
etienne
> On Jun 26, 3:58 pm, etienne <etienne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 juin, 11:33, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> > > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
> > > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> > > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> > > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> > > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> > > Agnostics.
>
> > > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> > > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> > > belief in its non existentiality.
>
> > > What is your opinion?
>
> > means to be an agnostic.
>
> You also have to know what the word, and concept of God is to develop
> a belief, or disbelief in God. A lack of belief is not necessarily a
> disbelief.
A lack of belief is what is needed to be accuratly labeled as an
atheist, no need for disbelief.
Richo
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:56:39 -0700 (PDT), Richo <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 26, 10:08?pm, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktaylo...@getnet.net>
> >wrote:
> >> > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> >> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
> >> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> >> > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> >> > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> >> > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> >> > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> >> > Agnostics.
>
> >> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
> >> > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack of
> >> > belief in its non existentiality.
>
> >> > What is your opinion?
>
> >I don't believe this really works.
> >it is implicit - assumed.
> >Terms only apply within certain domains - the universe of discourse -
> >and outside those domains their use generates nonsense or possibly
> >poetry. 8-)
> >Dead people, unconscious people and new born babies are not capable of
> >being theist - so they are certainly "not theist" - but neither are
> >they atheist.
>
> If they lack a god belief, they are atheist.
You can stick to that if you like - I am just saying it doesn't make
sense to me - for the above reasons.
Mark.
Trance Gemini
> Trance Gemini wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 5:33 am, harsha <harsha....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
> > > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>
> > > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is born
> > > without any idea of God until they are first introduced to this
> > > Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
> > > But he claims that they are born with a lack of belief in existence of
> > > God and also lack of belief in non existence of God which makes them
> > > Agnostics.
>
> > You are correct and he's incorrect.
>
> > Theism relates to Belief and Gnosticism relates to Knowledge.
>
> > So a theist believes in a god or gods and a gnostic believes that
> > knowledge of a god or gods existence is possible.
>
> > An atheist lacks
>
> No not quite - the words should be 'rejects' not 'lacks' which changes the
> whole thing.
This can apply *only* if you treat atheism as a belief *like* theism.
It is not. Therefore it is also not a rejection.
The term atheism exists for no other reason than the fact that there
are theists in the world and we atheists are not theists.
I'm a second generation atheist. I rejected nothing and neither did my
kids who are also atheist, for the simple reason that there is
*nothing* to reject.
We are atheists for no other reason than the fact that we are NOT
theists.
Trance Gemini
You appear to be treating atheism as a worldview or a belief and in my
opinion, this is where you're mistaken.
It's neither. It's a lack of belief in gods. Anyone including
Dualists, Spiritualists, New Agers, Pagans, who do not believe in gods
are atheists.
Their belief system is irrelevant to whether they are an atheist or
not.
So, like babies, you don't have to have a belief system to be an
atheist.
All that is required is that you lack a god belief.
Babies lack a god belief and will continue to lack one until they
choose one or their parents indoctrinate them into believing in one.
Most atheists however are rationalists with a naturalist world view
and a skeptical approach.
That is not a requirement for being an atheist.
Alex W.
wrote:
> On Jun 26, 4:44�pm, Mike Jones <N...@Arizona.Bay> wrote:
>> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> So babies cannot be agnostic but they are atheist by definition because
>>> atheism is simply a lack of belief which exists by default.
>>
>> Be definition from the perspective of those doing the defining.
>>
>> This is different to "IS an atheist".
>>
>> Don't get the two confused, as so many do.
>
> There is only one definition of atheism, "lack of belief in god(s)" so
> how does "from the perspective of those doing the defining" apply
> here?
>
Disagree.
You cite one definition.
There is the other, pro-active version which is an
affirmative disbelief on the divine. "I do not believe in
gods" is substantially different from "I believe there are
no gods", and both are called atheism.
Jimbo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again, I disagree that a lack of belief based on a lack of knowledge
is enough to be deemed an atheist. The subject has to give the matter
informed consideration.
Mike Jones
[...]
> We are atheists for no other reason than the fact that we are NOT
> theists.
Thats about my view on things.
I'd rather not be defined by theistic terminology at all, but in this
world...
--
*===( http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
*===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
*===( http://www.slackware.com/
Alex W.
wrote:
> On Jun 27, 3:59�am, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
It can be a worldview as well as a belief, but granted, that
is not necessarily so. I guess my usage of the term is not
always as precise as it ought to be -- a fault shared by
many in this group.
Alex W.
wrote:
Not at all. The sun is still rather far from the yardarm,
and I have yet to kill my first pitcher of Pimm's.
With the use of "plenty", you made a specific claim. It is
this on which I commented.
Mike Jones
[...]
>> > But my point is, the God concept is an extraordinary claim and until
>> > it is first introduced to you, there can be no such thing as a lack
>> > of belief in its non existentiality.
>> >
>> > What is your opinion?
>> >
>> >
>> Ask him whether he was born with a lack of belief in leprechauns. A
>> person cannot proclaim no knowledge of god (agnosticism) if he has no
>> knowledge of the concept of god, therefore he is wrong.
>
> Absolutely, spot on, Unc.
Not quite.
The concept of a "lack of" is insidious and distorting.
So, who introduced the idea there could be a "lack of"? Whats wrong with
"doesn't need", for example?
Yeah. Might want to look at that one again.
Beware common terminology. It's usually pre-loaded with things you didn't
mean to say. ;)
Mike Jones
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:03:47 -0400, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> On 27 Jun 2009 00:22:01 -0500, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Robibnikoff wrote:
>>>
>>>> "harsha" <harsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fba12dad-8ae7-44d4-
bce2-776...@d7g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
>>>> >I was recently debating with a theist about burden of Proof lying on
>>>> > Theists and not Atheists since they first made the claim of God.
>>>> >
>>>> > I said Atheism is a lack of belief in God and since everyone is
>>>> > born without any idea of God until they are first introduced to
>>>> > this Theistic claim, everyone is an Atheist to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> Correct
>>>
>>>Nope - they are not atheists, they are 'innocents'
>>>
>>>You first think about atheism when someone tries to shove religion down
>>>your throat, most kids need to be six or more for that.
>>
>> Bullshit. All it takes to be athjeist is not being theist. There are
>> plenty of us here who were never taught to be theist.
>
> Is this the right time to point out that theism requires the belief in
> at least one deity but that there are religions out there which make do
> without one?
>
> To say that a child is born an atheist makes it perfectly legitimate to
> claim that all newborns are Buddhist. Sound silly? It is silly (except
> for the reincarnated soul of the Dalai Lama, of course). And so it is
> silly to call them "atheist", whether trivially or not.
I keep whacking away at this one, FWIW.
I'll hoist that flag again for fun.
The term "atheism" is one dependant on it's root, the term "theism".
Without theism, there wouldn't be any "atheists", as atheism is an
alternate state /to/ theism. It doesn't work the other way around as the
whole game started with the introduction of theism.
Without theism to create these limited and artificial designations, there
would only be unremarkable "normal" and no need to see that in any
limited or restrictive terms at all.
As things are, "normal" has been reduced to "not one of those" and "has a
lack of something".
Thats not an improvement, its a penalty.
I'm more than an artificial designation dependant on something I don't
subscribe to, ta very much.
Mike Jones
[...]
>>The point here is neither belief or the absence thereof but the capacity
>>for either.
>
> No. The point is that the a- makes it binary.
>
> And that newborns are TRIVIALLY atheist.
>
>>It may be technically correct to refer to a baby as atheist, but it is
>>misleading because "X is an atheist" is a statement on a person's
>>worldview -- which a baby is incapable of.
>
> WHY LEAVE OUT THE "TRIVIALLY"?
Whats this "TRIVIALLY" thing here? This is a new one on me.
You seem to be convinced there are naturally two states, one of theism
and one of atheism, and that atheism exists as a state /independant/ of
that which generates the NEED to adopt a "state of atheism", that being
the artificially induced state of "theism" (a similar state to a number
of other insane delusions, which I think we both agree on. ;).
I'm confused about your base reference models here.
Trance Gemini
The default base definition of atheism is lack of belief in gods. That
is the minimum required to be an atheist.
Anything over and above that is a *qualified* form of atheism.
So, basically you have:
atheism (trivial) - base definition: lacks a belief in god(s)
strong atheism - qualified form: states that gods do not exist or to
phrase it your way "I believe there are no gods".
Strong atheism requires that a person is making a conscious decision
regarding a belief to which they've been exposed.
A baby cannot be a strong atheist because they are not capable of
that.
A baby is an atheist trivially and by default because they are also
incapable of being a theist.
Trance Gemini
> Responding to Trance Gemini:
>
> [...]
>
> > We are atheists for no other reason than the fact that we are NOT
> > theists.
>
> Thats about my view on things.
>
> I'd rather not be defined by theistic terminology at all, but in this
> world...
I agree.
Mike Jones
> bob young wrote:
>
>>> As you state, everyone is born without beliefs of any kind. Thus,
>>> newborns are athests
>>
>> No. . . . . . sorry - one has to be able to conceptualise the god scene
>> to become atheistic. Newly born humans are 'innocent'
>
>
> Are babies smokers on non-smokers? Stupid question, right, but it is no
> different from asking if babies are theist or atheist. The answer, of
> course, is that babies are non-smokers, as well as atheist. They will
> never light up a Marlboro on their own, and the first thing they'll do
> when they pop out of a uterus is cry, not profess an unbelief in Jesus.
> Still, they don't smoke - they're non-smokers. They don't believe in
> gods - they're atheists. It doesn't matter how silly applying these two
> concepts to babies are. Trivially, that's what they are.
You're confusing "not a smoker" (a zero-sum state) with the invented term
"non-smoker" (an inverted-positive state). As has been outlined here, an
infant does not have the capacity to adopt a state, and therefore isn't a
"non-smoker", just "isn't a smoker". Not the same thing, with regard to
the subject matter here.
There is no requirement for a list of the things we are /not/, and to
define by list exclusion is itself a mind-game of questionable value.
And again with this word "trivially". Whats going on here? Is this some
new buzzword I missed?
Are those who cling so strongly to the use of the term "atheist" in such
need of that tribalism that we are developing factions, those who just
want to dismiss godbotianism, and those who actually need it to have
something to define themselves against?
(I wonder where that invidious little mind-virus came from?)
Mike Jones
> On 27 Jun 2009 00:18:02 -0500, bob young <alasp...@netvigator.com>
Bullshit back atcha. Thats "atheistic", not "is an atheist".
Trance Gemini
I would disagree. Atheists tend to have certain types of worldviews or
beliefs but atheism isn't one of them. As I said before, we are
atheists simply because we are not theists so it's not a belief
statement.
Whatever beliefs we do have are irrelevant to whether we are atheists
or not irrespective of the fact that many atheists tend toward certain
types of beliefs like secular humanism, rationalism, etc.
There are also Religious belief systems that are atheistic like
Theravada Buddhism. They have a Dualism based approach.
> but granted, that
> is not necessarily so. I guess my usage of the term is not
> always as precise as it ought to be -- a fault shared by
> many in this group.
A fault shared by myself in the past as well.
Mike Jones
> bob young wrote:
>
>> No atheism is not 'lack of' anything, atheism is rejecting gods
>
> You're wrong there. Atheism is simply opposite of theism - a lack of
> belief in gods. I don't see why you need to re-label it to "rejecting".
>
> If I don't believe in Jesus or Santa Claus or vampires, I am not
> rejecting anything - I simply don't believe that shit. I may reject the
> inevitable theists' efforts to impose their view, laws and "morality" on
> me, but that's beyond the scope of atheism.
One needs to have the idea of a deity introduced before one can decide
not to accept it. Thats the point of atheism. Before that, one is, as Bob
has illustrated, something describable as "innocent".
Atheism is inextricably linked to theism in some fashion.
Can't have one without the other. As Christopher has pointed out, the 'a'
makes it binary. This therefore creates a "polor opposite" state between
theists and atheists. The "innocent" is not defined by this until
introduce to it, is not "polorised" until placed in that environment.
Therefore, an infant is not an atheist (even though they could be
perceived /externally/ as "atheistic"). That requires conceptual capacity
and will, which infants don't typically have at that stage in life. The
only term that fits so far is Bob's "innocent".