Participating Member
Re: Atheism
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.Originally Posted by PennyQuilts
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
Participating Member
Re: Atheism
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
Re: Atheism
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.
Re: Atheism
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.
Re: Atheism
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?
Re: Atheism
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.
Participating Member
Re: Atheism
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.
Participating Member
Re: Atheism
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.
Re: Atheism
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.
Participating Member
Re: Atheism
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?
Participating Member
Re: Atheism
Spongebob
Re: Atheism
I provided a reasonable argument for honest discourse.
Instead of engaging in the discussion you went out of your
way to avoid it.
Re: Atheism
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.
Participating Member
Re: Atheism
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.
Participating Member
Re: Atheism
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?
Participating Member
Re: Atheism
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.
Re: Atheism
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.
Re: Atheism
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????
Re: Atheism
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.
Participating Member
Re: Atheism
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:
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:
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.
Participating Member
Re: Atheism
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.
Re: Atheism
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.
Participating Member
Re: Atheism
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"?
Re: Atheism
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.
Re: Atheism
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks