is the easiest religion to Troll.

How is it possible for you to be an Atheist?

How is it possible for you to be an Atheist?

Logic and reasoning.

I do not mean this as snidely as it's going to sound, but how is it possible *not* to be? I stopped believing in magical fairy tales before I was 10. Out of respect for my mother and (now ex) wife, I still remained part of the church until I moved out in 2005, but it never really stuck. I can go through all the motions and quote scripture better than 75 percent of them, but it never got inside.

It was a directed question at him, not generally.

I do not mean this as snidely as it's going to sound, but how is it possible *not* to be? I stopped believing in magical fairy tales before I was 10. Out of respect for my mother and (now ex) wife, I still remained part of the church until I moved out in 2005, but it never really stuck. I can go through all the motions and quote scripture better than 75 percent of them, but it never got inside.

To you it's a magic fairy tale but 3 or 4 billion people on this planet believe. Who are you to say your opinion is correct?

It was a directed question at him, not generally.

lol, what?

I didn't say anything at all about being an athiest.

You obviously are in dire need of some basic reading comprehension skills.

ReadingFish and Merit Software have some solid reading comprehension programs that I suggest you look into.

No, he didn't say he was atheist.

I think people are hard wired to believe in a creator or something beyond themselves. Not everyone does, but that has been my observation.

No, he didn't say he was atheist.

I think people are hard wired to believe in a creator or something beyond themselves. Not everyone does, but that has been my observation.

Its an inherent need for people to be able to explain their reason to be. There are explanations across the globe but they boil down to some sort of supernatural creator(s) because they can't explain it otherwise. For some reason, hoardes of people on this planet can't accept they are a part of evolution and not feel lost and that life is somehow pointless because of it. Some of us have absolutely no problem with it.

Its an inherent need for people to be able to explain their reason to be. There are explanations across the globe but they boil down to some sort of supernatural creator(s) because they can't explain it otherwise. For some reason, hoardes of people on this planet can't accept they are a part of evolution and not feel lost and that life is somehow pointless because of it. Some of us have absolutely no problem with it.

I am sure that is a huge part of it, but I believe there is also a definite yearning within most of us for something greater - it is more an emotional need than the need to intellectually understand how we got here. I think plenty of people would gladly accept the whole evolutionary theory if they believed a god, or whatever you want to call it, put that into place.

I think plenty of people would gladly accept the whole evolutionary theory if they believed a god, or whatever you want to call it, put that into place.

I've never understood why more Christians can't embrace this idea...

There's nothing in the bible that states that God created the world/universe/whatever in 6 consecutive days.. Who's to say that hundreds of millions of years didn't pass between the 5th day of creation and the 6th day of creation and that was the time it took for God's process of creating "beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind"?

I've never understood why more Christians can't embrace this idea...

There's nothing in the bible that states that God created the world/universe/whatever in 6 consecutive days.. Who's to say that hundreds of millions of years didn't pass between the 5th day of creation and the 6th day of creation and that was the time it took for God's process of creating "beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind"?

IT's whether the reader can grasp the stories in the bible as moral lessons or whether the reader feels he/she has to take each word literally (literally, based on their favorite interpretation). It's like Jonah and the Whale. Are you going to be one who believes he really rode around in the belly of a whale or are you going to take it as an illustration of a lesson?

No, he didn't say he was atheist.

I think people are hard wired to believe in a creator or something beyond themselves. Not everyone does, but that has been my observation.

They probably are. I've always found the argument, specifically from Dawkins, that this in any way disproved or even damaged the idea of a God to be ridiculous. A world with a God could have people with this tendency, as could a world without one. I guess it weakens the argument from numbers a bit though.

I've never understood why more Christians can't embrace this idea...

Read some material by creationists like Darwin's Black Box or something similar. If you don't have a strong background in the topic they can be very convincing. Pseudosciences are powerful things in Western culture.

is the easiest religion to Troll.

Atheism is not a religion; that many people mistakenly classify it as such does nothing to change its irreligious nature.

Most atheists of which I am aware would call themselves pragmatists. That being the case, how can a pragmatist be an atheist? If believers are wrong, they have lost nothing. If atheists are wrong, they have eternity to lose.

Most atheists of which I am aware would call themselves pragmatists. That being the case, how can a pragmatist be an atheist? If believers are wrong, they have lost nothing. If atheists are wrong, they have eternity to lose.

Interesting point of view...

Atheism is not a religion; that many people mistakenly classify it as such does nothing to change its irreligious nature.

I think people can turn anything into a religion and plenty of people worship the belief that there is no god just as passionately as some believe in a God. When they start preaching and attacking the morals and beliefs of people because those people don't share their ideology, they've clearly crossed the line into religion, IMO.

We all come out of the womb atheist.

We all come out of the womb atheist.

No, we don't. We don't even have a concept or ideology so it would have to be neutral. And from that, there is rapidly an intense attachment to a godlike parental figure that is generally transfered to a religious figure, in time, for many if not most people. Much of the psychology involved in this is also an essential factor in developing a mature, ethical nature. Not saying it has to come from religion but it does come from parental figures that for most, are interchangable with religious figures when we are babies and young children.

Religious beliefs date back to primative people and I'd argue that believing in god of some sort is the default position. Most young people, regardless of whether they have been raised in a religious home, struggle far more to adopt the belief that there is no god than they do in accepting that there is a god of some sort. Children believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and fantasy figures that no one even suggested to them. It is not in their nature to believe nothing is there UNLESS, they are taught to specifically reject god or a god. And even then, their inclination will be to believe in some magical god until they are old enough to be given a scientific reason for why things are the way they are.

Logic and reasoning.
No, really, how is it possible?

We all come out of the womb atheist.

Agreed...that way until mommy and daddy tell us otherwise

I've never understood why more Christians can't embrace this idea...

There's nothing in the bible that states that God created the world/universe/whatever in 6 consecutive days.. Who's to say that hundreds of millions of years didn't pass between the 5th day of creation and the 6th day of creation and that was the time it took for God's process of creating "beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind"?

Whatever happened to Fuzzytoad?

Agreed...that way until mommy and daddy tell us otherwise

You don't have kids, do you?

Or do you think that they are born scientifically inclined, objective, analytical and demanding of proof before they believe anything - until, that is, someone warps their nerdy little brains by whispering that the scientific method is not the answer to all their questions? Seriously, do some research on developmental psychology with an emphasis of how the brains of young children develop concerning higher level thinking and morality.

You don't have kids, do you?

Or do you think that they are born scientifically inclined, objective, analytical and demanding of proof before they believe anything - until, that is, someone warps their nerdy little brains by whispering that the scientific method is not the answer to all their questions? Seriously, do some research on developmental psychology with an emphasis of how the brains of young children develop concerning higher level thinking and morality.

Have a 2 yr old with a DVR full of Yo Gabba Gabba as evidence

Take it you disagree with me and feel the need to throw in some festive condescension as well...oh well

Children believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and fantasy figures that no one even suggested to them. It is not in their nature to believe nothing is there UNLESS, they are taught to specifically reject god or a god. And even then, their inclination will be to believe in some magical god until they are old enough to be given a scientific reason for why things are the way they are.

No one suggests Santa Claus to kid? Are you serious? Its pushed on them just like Christianity. Behave well and you will get presents/go to heaven.

Also, I grew up going to church and never did anyone try to teach to me to specifically reject God, but at a young age (11-12) I begin to question the reality of a god. You dont have to be taught atheism. It usually comes from a lot of thinking and introspection

No one suggests Santa Claus to kid? Are you serious? Its pushed on them just like Christianity. Behave well and you will get presents/go to heaven.

Also, I grew up going to church and never did anyone try to teach to me to specifically reject God, but at a young age (11-12) I begin to question the reality of a god. You dont have to be taught atheism. It usually comes from a lot of thinking and introspection

Sounds similar to my story...remember sitting in Sunday school at that age thinking none of this makes any sense

I consider myself an open minded free agent ready to hop on the team that comes up with some evidence

No one suggests Santa Claus to kid? Are you serious? Its pushed on them just like Christianity. Behave well and you will get presents/go to heaven.

Also, I grew up going to church and never did anyone try to teach to me to specifically reject God, but at a young age (11-12) I begin to question the reality of a god. You dont have to be taught atheism. It usually comes from a lot of thinking and introspection

I probably should have put a comma after Easter Bunny. Children believe in make believe and if you didn't make stuff up, they'd still do it on their own.

At 11 - 12 of course you are questioning god. This line of discussion began at the notion that we come out of the womb as atheists and I disagree, strongly, with that. We aren't born Christians or Muslims or pagans or with a full blown ideology or theology but young children, even toddlers, tend to believe in god or something like god (something greater than themselves with, to them, practically super powers) very early in their psychological development. The notion of rejecting a higher power comes much later in their development.

Have a 2 yr old with a DVR full of Yo Gabba Gabba as evidence

Take it you disagree with me and feel the need to throw in some festive condescension as well...oh well

But do you honestly think that child was born with a belief that all the marvels he sees in his life are due to science? Be honest - he has no idea how these things came to be and in the absence of knowledge or the capacity to understand even simple scientific explanations, he is going to come up with something like magic to explain it. That is NOT atheism and there is no cognitive uncoupling between birth and his age where he goes from being an atheist to a curious child with a lot more questions than answers. To believe he was born an atheist ignores what an atheist is (a belief that there is no god). It also fails to take into account the natural mindset and curiosity of a child, who, you know, will make up all kinds of theories to explain his reality (some are very funny) - but that there is no god is probably way, way low on the list. And even if he gets to that point, the claim that children start out at birth at that mindset until programmed by their parents or what have you makes no sense. Most atheists I know have had to teach their young children to not be fanciful and believe in god. I've never seen it "take" until the child is at least several years old.

Wow! This thread has shown that atheism doesn't have a chance.
Not that it ever did.

Here's a thought. If the survival of the fittest is bonafide, how
does an atheist explain morality?

Whatever happened to Fuzzytoad?

I don't know. I miss his scary, bugged eye face, kidded him about it, while reminding me of a good movie I saw before.

Wow! This thread has shown that atheism doesn't have a chance.
Not that it ever did.

This thread has yet to reach a length of two full pages; there is certainly more to be argued than what has transpired here. While I am presently overwhelmed with academic obligations, I will gladly entertain all-out debate when the semester ends.



Here's a thought. If the survival of the fittest is bonafide, how
does an atheist explain morality?

Is this question rhetorical or do you sincerely wish to discuss morality?

If anyone is genuinely seeking an exchange within the sphere of theism, I welcome honest debate. I only ask that participants contemplate their arguments beforehand and refrain from employing fallacious reasoning. Moreover, I will refuse to address subsequent arguments until preceding claims have been substantiated with valid litigation and sound evidence. The only exception to this stipulation is the unlikely occurrence that one concedes his argument. If such a scenario plays out and the fallacious argument is retracted, I will again entertain deliberation.

If anyone is interested in honest discourse, I invite participants to advance a reasonable argument for his or her stance on theism. With this having been expressed, I ask that contributors to discussion forgive my delayed responses. As long as arguments adhere to the previously outlined conditions, I will do my best respond in a timely manner.

If believers are wrong, they have lost nothing. If atheists are wrong, they have eternity to lose.

For individuals who employ the fallacious suggestion of Pascal's Wager, the likelihood of a believer being wrong is hardly ever contemplated. To propose Pascal's Wager is to introduce a false dichotomy, wherein one can either believe in a specific deity or no deity at all. When one considers the thousands of man-made deities and infinite variations of them, he might find that appeals to Pascal's Wager cease to have any practical relevance in discussion.

For an individual to maintain a position of monotheism, he must reject all proclaimed deities but one. Thus, the probability of him being wrong is virtually the same as the it is for an atheist, provided the infinite number of deities that any individual could affirm. Pascal's Wager suggests a false dichotomy and bestows erroneous appeals to emotion. It does not demonstrate the existence of any deity, nor has it ever been a persuasive argument for such.

My point was that to claim a child is born an atheist is claiming they have formed an opinion, at birth, of the non existence of god. At best, they are born agnostic -they don't know or believe one way or the other. They wouldn't even know to ask the question.

The fallacy of the reasoning - setting aside for a moment that a newborn lacks the developmental cognitive abilities to reach an intellectual conclusion that there is no god - appears to be based on a notion that atheism is where humans begin their spiritual search (if any). That makes no sense. In the absence of information or ability to analyse it or even have a framework to reach that decision, an infant cannot embrace a cognitive discipline that rejects a creator/god.

I won't dispute that their spiritual framework (including, in some cases, atheism) is imposed by their parents, culture, etc. But claiming they are born with a particular belief system regarding god/creator is too great a reach.

A blank slate is NOT the same as atheism. I personally don't think they have a blank slate (I think most have a propensity towards religion) but for the sake of argument, assume they do. Atheism is a belief system that there is no god. It is based on facts but the ability to reason regarding those facts is not present at birth and the child is not yet able to adopt the belief system of its parents or community.

My point was that to claim a child is born an atheist is claiming they have formed an opinion, at birth, of the non existence of god...

When a child is born they have no concept or belief in any god which by definition makes them an atheist.

Are you however saying that a new born infant coming out of the womb has a belief in god? If so which one? Zeus? Thor? Venus? Allah?

When a child is born they have no concept or belief in any god which by definition makes them an atheist.

Are you however saying that a new born infant coming out of the womb has a belief in god? If so which one? Zeus? Thor? Venus? Allah?

Spongebob

If anyone is interested in honest discourse, I invite participants
to advance a reasonable argument for his or her stance on theism.
With this having been expressed, I ask that contributors to
discussion forgive my delayed responses. As long as arguments
adhere to the previously outlined conditions, I will do my best
respond in a timely manner.
I provided a reasonable argument for honest discourse.
Instead of engaging in the discussion you went out of your
way to avoid it.

When a child is born they have no concept or belief in any god which by definition makes them an atheist.

Are you however saying that a new born infant coming out of the womb has a belief in god? If so which one? Zeus? Thor? Venus? Allah?

No - ignorance or inability to understand/reason does not make you an atheist. Atheism is a specific belief that there is no god. Go back and read what I wrote to figure out what I think a baby believes but thanks for the absurdity. Just proves the point that when somone has nuthin' they often make up stupid crap, attribute it to others and then shoot it down.

This thread has yet to reach a length of two full pages; there is certainly more to be argued than what has transpired here. While I am presently overwhelmed with academic obligations, I will gladly entertain all-out debate when the semester ends.



Is this question rhetorical or do you sincerely wish to discuss morality?

If anyone is genuinely seeking an exchange within the sphere of theism, I welcome honest debate. I only ask that participants contemplate their arguments beforehand and refrain from employing fallacious reasoning. Moreover, I will refuse to address subsequent arguments until preceding claims have been substantiated with valid litigation and sound evidence. The only exception to this stipulation is the unlikely occurrence that one concedes his argument. If such a scenario plays out and the fallacious argument is retracted, I will again entertain deliberation.

If anyone is interested in honest discourse, I invite participants to advance a reasonable argument for his or her stance on theism. With this having been expressed, I ask that contributors to discussion forgive my delayed responses. As long as arguments adhere to the previously outlined conditions, I will do my best respond in a timely manner.

Wow, folks! Looks like we got ourselves a gen-u-ine smarty pants here! Seems like a lot of rules for a mid-stream joiner.

Question for Prunepicker: I grew up in California as a child of the Okie migration. There were three classes of "pickers," namely cottonpickers, prunepickers and (our family considered ourselves to be at the top of the ladder, so to speak) us peachpickers. I never understood what a prunepicker was, since I think a prune is a dried plum and I have been confused all my life about why one who picks plums is called a prunepicker rather than a plumpicker. I am sure most people are curious about this. Can you help me with this one?

No - ignorance or inability to understand/reason does not make you an atheist. Atheism is a specific belief that there is no god. Go back and read what I wrote to figure out what I think a baby believes but thanks for the absurdity. Just proves the point that when somone has nuthin' they often make up stupid crap, attribute it to others and then shoot it down.

Atheism does not require belief in fact it's quite the opposite. It is the lack of belief. One is an atheists if one does not believe in a god. Just like a baby that comes out of the womb who lacks any belief in god.

We are all born atheists. We remain atheists until we develop a belief in a deity or deities.

Atheism does not require belief in fact it's quite the opposite. It is the lack of belief. One is an atheists if one does not believe in a god. Just like a baby that comes out of the womb who lacks any belief in god.

We are all born atheists. We remain atheists until we develop a belief in a deity or deities.

Stew, that is just incorrect. Go google it, if nothing else. By your argument, anyone in a coma is automatically an atheist, to take it to the point of absurdity. Atheism is a specific belief about the (lack of) exisitence of god - it is NOT simply the mindset of not being a theist or agnostic.

To claim an infant is an atheist is like saying that if you aren't a Christian, you are a Satanist.

If a newborn infant could, in fact, believe there is no god, it would be an atheist. Granted. But by virtue of the fact that it doesn't have any notion of whether there is a god or not precludes a belief in the lack of a god from ever forming. They need more information or more ability to reason before they can form a specific disbelief in god.

Imagine this - a child is playing in a field and there is a monster stalking him. Child doesn't know about it. Does that mean he thinks the monster doesn't exist? No. It means he is clueless one way or the other and has no opinion as to whether the monster is real or not. He's never seen it, no one has ever warned him about it, it has never come up on the conversation.

There is an infinite number of possible things to believe in and just because you never thought of them doesn't mean you have a specific disbelief in them.

I decided to look into this to see how widespread Stew's belief was that newborns could be atheists. It is definitely a minority position but it has been raised before - notwithstanding that even the word "atheism" has a long history and from its origin has denoted a specific rejection of theism. IMO, I think that anyone who wants to include newborns and brain dead people in the ranks of atheism isn't raising the credibility of the belief. Most atheists I know take pride in having come to the conclusion that there are no gods by active and unflinching intellectual analysis. I suppose it is respect for that intellectual exercise that makes me even more likely to scoff at the notion that newborns are in the same ranks simply by virtue of breathing. I am no atheist, btw - I don't think we have enough information to make that sort of leap. WHO KNEW I used to be an atheist before my brain kicked in????

I never understood what a prunepicker was, since I think a prune
is a dried plum and I have been confused all my life about why
one who picks plums is called a prunepicker rather than a
plumpicker.
It supposedly came from the depression era and may have been
a derogatory, like Okie was supposed to be. I've always
considered it a play on words or a pun.

I provided a reasonable argument for honest discourse.
Instead of engaging in the discussion you went out of your
way to avoid it.

Prior to my response, you had contributed a total of two posts -- neither of which bear the traits of a reasonable argument.

The following is your first submission to discourse:

No, really, how is it possible?
Your first reply consisted of a rhetorical objection, conveying the facade of skeptical inquiry. Such scrutiny offered nothing of value to discussion and no inferences can be made from it. A fruitless one-liner, such as the gem you advanced here, does not constitute an argument.

This was your second response:

Wow! This thread has shown that atheism doesn't have a chance.
Not that it ever did.

Here's a thought. If the survival of the fittest is bonafide, how
does an atheist explain morality?
In this response, you simply asserted that atheism does not have a chance. You made no attempt to demonstrate how, and with respect to what, atheism fails. Without a hint of substantiation, your claim is contrary to a reasonable argument.

You followed this shortcoming with yet another rhetorical objection. At no point in this response did you actually address any aspect of what had been discussed thus far.

Pretentious skepticism and bald assertions will only lead to stalemates, while demonstrative arguments bear fruit of sound conclusions. Your responses have not been reasonable, nor can they be confused with arguments.

Wow, folks! Looks like we got ourselves a gen-u-ine smarty pants here! Seems like a lot of rules for a mid-stream joiner.

Rather than addressing the arguer, I recommend you address the argument. I laid out my conditions for honest discussion. If you reject any aspect of what I have written thus far, I invite you to submit an appropriate rebuttal.

You may begin by defending your fallacious usage of Pascal's Wager.

Prior to my response, you had contributed a total of two posts
-- etal...
If you don't want to have a reasonable debate, that's up to you.
You've yet to say anything about the question but you've
certainly wasted a lot of time avoiding it.

When you're ready I'll be here.

If you don't want to have a reasonable debate, that's up to you.
You've yet to say anything about the question but you've
certainly wasted a lot of time avoiding it.

When you're ready I'll be here.

I will not entertain a discussion of secular morality until someone demonstrates that he or she is willing to deliberate honestly. If you wish to debate the issue, you may demonstrate your willingness to comply with my conditions by addressing the the substance contained in my previous response to you. Do you still contend that your first two responses were "reasonable arguments"?

I will not entertain a discussion of secular morality until someone demonstrates that he or she is willing to deliberate honestly. If you wish to debate the issue, you may demonstrate your willingness to comply with my conditions by addressing the the substance contained in my previous response to you. Do you still contend that your first two responses were "reasonable arguments"?

Good luck in trying to contain the rules of discussion but you're right, you can always withdraw if people don't abide by your groundrules.

As for me, I tend to agree that we can't determine the existence of god through reason - there is just so much we don't know that we don't know. However, I think it is safe to say that we can use reason to refute many of the traditional, mainstream theologies - at least as they have been defined by traditional teaching. My personal belief is that the more you try to define god, the less likely you are correct.

But the older I get, the happier I am that we have these types of teachings. They impose a discipline and a morality on a large group of people that tends to benefit society as a whole. You can teach ethics to a child, certainly, but like most things, a less able parent is probably less able to instill the level of self discipline and introspection that your run of the mill religion manages on a regular basis. I personally am far more concerned about the state of our streets and neighborhoods than the state of my neighbor's soul and if being a Presbyterian helps him to remember to take out his garbage and leave my television and stereo system alone when I'm out of the house, that, alone, makes religion worthwhile.

I will not entertain a discussion... etal...
For someone who says they're too busy with school to debate
you've certainly given a lot of time to not debating.

If you don't want to join in, just say so.

I will point out that I didn't not use the phrase secular morality.
The term used is morality.

Let's try it again.
If the survival of the fittest is bonafide, how does an atheist
explain morality?

Anybody? Do you care to discuss this?

Prune, I'm assuming social contract. Reciprocal moral/ethical behavior enhances survival.

Prune, I'm assuming social contract. Reciprocal moral/ethical
behavior enhances survival.
How does that work with grizzly bears?

How does that work with grizzly bears?

We aren't Grizzly bears! If we were, we'd be relying more on our claws and less on our brains and social skills.

Speak for yourselves.

Prune is an idiot and incapable of discussing ANYthing intelligently. He taught third grade science for a semester or somethng so he claims to be a scientist. He is a friggin' bass player.

Rather than addressing the arguer, I recommend you address the argument. I laid out my conditions for honest discussion. If you reject any aspect of what I have written thus far, I invite you to submit an appropriate rebuttal.

You may begin by defending your fallacious usage of Pascal's Wager.

I am not inclined to participate in the kind of discussion you propose. So much for my "fallacious use of Pascal's Wager", whatever the hell that is. I'm not interested in conducting a give-and-take with someone who is set on sounding oh-so-intelligent while I am more inclined to discuss on the level of a conversation. So the concept contained in my statement has a name? Who was Pascal? What was his wager? Did he win or lose? Why and according to whom?

Prune is an idiot and incapable of discussing ANYthing intelligently. He taught third grade science for a semester or somethng so he claims to be a scientist. He is a friggin' bass player.

Hey! Prune posed a question that the intellectual has yet to answer! Of course, it may not follow the rules Bronchitis laid out.

Prunie asked a legitimate question and not a particularly controversial one. To attack him on that basis is just looking for an excuse. The BO and stuff makes me nuts and I don't agree with all his conclusions (or all the conclusions of anyone else on the board) but setting aside the dogmatic statements and BO stuff, I think he goes to much more effort to explain his reasoning that probably 90% of the posters on the board. Again, I don't always agree with his conclusions but I won't fault the effort and thought he puts into his responses, most of the time. I can't say the same for many others who engage in verbal terrorism and do nothing but cut and paste from the internet but can't explain their reasoning.

We aren't Grizzly bears! If we were, we'd be relying more on our
claws and less on our brains and social skills.
But how does that equate to survival of the fittest? Wouldn't
morality get in the way?

Why aren't there any atheists on this thread? I'm not calling them
chicken, I'm just curious? It's not like they're going to be attacked
or put down, well, not by me and a couple of others.





Merry Christmas!
After all, it's that time of
the year!