Yup. There's a lot of it aboutSo then cows are atheists too? I'm pretty sure they lack beliefs too.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?
- Thread starter Patrick66
- Start date
Can you demonstrate any baby is born with any belief at all? Atheism is not the same thing as lacking the capacity for belief. But if you wish to claim atheism means empty-headed, then be my guest.
Atheist Cows. Awesome.
Can you demonstrate any baby is born with any belief at all? Atheism is not the same thing as lacking the capacity for belief. But if you wish to claim atheism means empty-headed, then be my guest.
I asked first. You have no answer, fair enough
Atheist Cows. Awesome.
I never see them in church or mosque or temple (although i believe some religions used them as sacrifice)
We Never Know
No Slack
There's a reason for that, but they cannot understand it due to spiritual blindness. It's not necessarily their fault. God doesn't permit everyone to believe in him - yet. In the end, ALL will believe and follow Jesus.
Uhm because they are athiest.
We could flip your OP like this and it would be
"Ever notice how democrats are virtually always on the opposite side from republicans on many issues"
Atheist Cows. Awesome.
I was raised on a dairy farm and any cows i asked (yes i talked to them) "do you believe in a god" were either silent on the matter or said mooo, which i understood to mean no
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Atheism is a lack of belief.
Babies aren't capable of holding any sort of "isms" at all. Atheism does not mean incapable of forming or holding beliefs. That's what you have to make it mean in order to claim a baby is an atheist. Same with cows, dogs, cats, trees, and so forth. Words like theist and atheist cannot be applied to them, any more that words like patriot, or traitor, believer or non-believer, faithful or unfaithful. These only come online when the brain has had time to develop to hold the capacity for points of view to be held cognitively.
Atheism does not mean the same things as "empty-headed", or the more scientific way of putting, "precognitive" states does it?
Images of Mr. Ed come to mind.
It seems apparent that the default of "agnostic" suggests a person is neutral on ideas because they have no prior exverience with them. Where it comes to the many ideas of gods it is hard to find anyone who hasn't heard of one version or another, and numerous definitions, and many, mnay different claims of truth and fact. At best it is all confusing and even overwhelming. And the ideas of god are not free of social pressure, so to suggest anyone can assess these ideas objectively would mean they have to be able to recognize social pressure to conform, and set it aside. My experience did this. It wasn't that I had the skill to recognize social pressure, it was that I happen to be very independent as a person and have never been influenced by the crowd, masses, popularity. I remember as a kid questioning the claims about God and Jesus even though it was my grandmother mostly telling me these claims. I happened to have a diverse Christian family so got to observe how the Catholics, and Baptists conflicted religiously with the presbyterians. They all claimed truth about Jesus but did not agree, and I watched them all behave as I collected data. None of my other cousins did this, but of the 13 only two of us are atheists. Oddly the other is also a very independent guy. So there might be something to independence.
Yes, the many different versions of gods we hear about is data. And with individual believers claiming different things as truth, and then not proving evidence tht they have truth (or facts) this adds to the data of thinkers. This suggests most believers did not come to a logical conclusion that any version of god exists, but that they adoted a version as a consequence of their life and social experience. Why is Jim Catholic and not a Muslim? Because he was exposed to Catholicism and not Islam. Are the gods the same? Not if all the claims are taken into account. We see many believers become more vague in what they believe as if this will help 1. create a sort of uniform claims among many diverse believers, and 2. offers fewer details that thinkers can assess for truth and validity.
I am wary of the ongoing social pressure to accept god concepts, and this is evident in some posts in thos and other threads. The "you just don't get it" claims are an example. Or the shifting of goalposts and definitions is another, as if god can be forced into existence by playing with words and definitions. It is apparent that some believers get frustrated.
And yet, it's quite true. More to the point, if babies are not indoctrinated into belief, usually very young, they are most likely to grow up never acquiring such a belief. And that is a fact that merits quite serious consideration -- by anybody who actually wants to know how humans work.So are cats then, so are trees, by such a bizarre and meaningless sweeping definition of atheism. "Atheism is everything else that is not theism", in other words. The whole of creation is Atheist, except for theists then. Right?
It's just game playing with words and makes the meaning of atheism, meaningless. And atheists complain when people say everything is God, and then say why not just call that nature then? Yet, they are fine in claiming babies and cats and dogs and cows and trees are atheists? It's so absurd it doesn't merit serious consideration.
Quod erat demonstrndum.
DNB's response demonstrates what my post referred to.
So they're theists?
Then why did you bring them up in post 127?
Are 5 year olds theists? How about 10 year olds who are taken to church and Sunday school? Can they understand that what they hear about Jesus saving them if they believe, are they using reasoning skill to ponder these complex ideas, or just trusting those around them? It could be Abdul being told that Allah requires him to pray five times a day, and hears nothing about Jesus and salvation.
So holding an "ism" doesn't suggest the person has thought through the ideas when it starts so young, and/or the verson lacks critical thinking skill. They end up holding one or another because they were indoctrinated, and later in life have integrated these ideas to such a degree they can't eiminate it without inner conflict.
At what age can a human be called a theist?
It means non-theist, or no-theism.
But a baby isn't a theist. Or are they?
Irrelevant.
The brain can adopt and create ideas before it has developed the capacity to analyze them for truth. This is why I consider religious indoctrination immoral.
Atheist means non-theist. I agree that is is not applicable to declare a person an atheist since the cultural defaults all over the world has religious elements. A child born in a non-religious family will have a better chance to not be religious themselves, and once they become aware of religions in the world they might begin to examine this phenomenon and decide whether they thing a god exists, or the claims are not credible. But most kids are exposed to religion to some degree, and how their social experience evolves will influence them and their personal need to believe. At what age should children be exposed to religion, and sholud this include exposure to a diversity of religions?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
God carries a lot of useless baggage which nature does not. Has to be one or has to be many, has to be praised, has to be confessed to, has to have souls to torture, has to have have heaven and hell (mostly), has to judge people, has to send sons/prophets/messengers/manifestations/mahdis who have to be accepted. Nature does not have any of these things.
Considering the definition, how is the designation not apt? Whether it makes sense or not doesn't change the fact that cow's fit the definition.So then cows are atheists too? I'm pretty sure they lack beliefs too.
Are you attacking a straw man, here? Are you imputing some alternate definition to our arguments?
Last edited:
Right, I've seen cows enter the cathedral to offer confession, and....opps, no, it's a slaughterhouse. My mistake, they aren't theists after all. That means they have no-theism, aka, atheism.Atheist Cows. Awesome.
Do cows have an option to be atheists or theists? No more than a child who is indocrinated at an age well before they are capable of questioning what they are accepting as true. But I guess being herded into church is better than being herded into a slaughterhouse.
If it is a binary option then a person is in one category or the other. Agnostic wouldn't apply since it implies knowledge being the critical issue, even the lack of it, which means the person has to have a certain level of development.
BTW, speaking of dropping bombs, where is Major Kong? I mean, where is @It Aint Necessarily So?