Fundamentalist Atheists

[Breathe]

I just can't bring myself to even imagine that.

But personal incredulity is, as you know, not a counterargument against the validity of such experiences.

Naturally, the fact that this would be instilled in is would be an indication to why religion seems to be found in all cultures in the world. Even the Pirahã people, whom some atheists have wet dreams about being an atheist bunch, are arguably not atheists, as they believe in spirits. The difference between a spirit and a god is frequently blurry at best, if there is such a line in the first place.

Maybe I would if I had the kind of experience that you have. I guess I will never know for certain.

Probably not, but my experiences are mine.

From where I am right now, it is difficult to avoid the impression that it is some sort of projection, though.

I understand, but I feel to say this would be an unfair claim to be made. I don't even consider myself to be a pantheist.
Claiming projection as a defence against this should be treated on par with me saying that atheism is a mental health or spiritual health deficiency or impairment because my experiences imply that spirituality is a normal part of being human. Even if I were to say it, it's not necessarily true.

 

[Thief]

Of course. But that is what happens when scripture is presented as an argument. What else did you want or expect?

Actually...a discussion about scripture will likely work better than anything else..
when God is in the background of the topic.

Did see a science program about humans and the way they develop belief.

It seems we are greatly different than the rest of the animal kingdom.
We can 'perceive' more readily and then anticipate the consequence.

When deciding about spiritual matters...it does appear the age of seven leans to the event of that decision.

What we are told when we are younger leads to our beliefs.
So....if God wasn't there for the adults in your life....
He might not be there for you now.

 

[Koldo]

My experience is that children are animists/pantheists.

I agree with the animist part ( up to a certain point ), but pantheism?
I haven't ever come across a pantheist child. To be honest, it wasn't until I was an adult that I first heard about pantheism ( both the word and the concept ).

 

[arcanum]

Anyone else bothered by the existence of what I call either fundamentalist or mainstream atheists? To be honest, these guys and gals annoy me more than almost any other group. I'm talking about these outspoken atheist who'll literally result to fideism in their hate for religion or fallacy to attack religion. Pretty much 99% of r/atheism.

Anyone else see these folks?

Yeah guys like Richard Dawkins annoy me, pretentious and condescending. He pretty much epitomizes an atheist fundie.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yeah guys like Richard Dawkins annoy me, pretentious and condescending. He pretty much epitomizes an atheist fundie.

Can you point to a well-known, book-writing atheist whom you don't consider to be an atheist fundie?

 

[ChristineES]

Friend CynthiaCyper,


Atheist is as per dictionary:
So, with that do you have evidence otherwise?

Love & rgds

I believe that babies are neither atheists nor theists at birth.

 

[ChristineES]

Fundamentalist might be the wrong word, but I think it was more the point that was being made as to why it was used. When we think of theists (mainly Christians, in this case) who are really preachy and judgmental, we call them fundamentalists, so the word fundamentalist atheist was probably used to describe an atheist who was also rather preachy and judgmental, as well.

The OP writer can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[zenzero]

Friend ChristienES,

I believe that babies are neither atheists nor theists at birth.

Yes atheism/ theism are mind concepts which are undeveloped in children.

Love & rgds

 

[LuisDantas]

Actually...a discussion about scripture will likely work better than anything else..
when God is in the background of the topic.

If you say so. But scripture is inherently limited as an argument; people may simply not feel compelled to lend it importance.

 

[zenzero]

Friend LuisDantas,

But scripture is inherently limited as an argument; people may simply not feel compelled to lend it importance.

Firstly a big hello to an old friend.
Though am illiterate in scriptures but do accept them as storehouses of knowledge for every seeker/traveller of the path.
However since you have such opinion would not like you to change anything at best maybe discuss some passage from scriptures with those who know it.

Love & rgds

 

[Breathe]

I agree with the animist part ( up to a certain point ), but pantheism?
I haven't ever come across a pantheist child. To be honest, it wasn't until I was an adult that I first heard about pantheism ( both the word and the concept ).

Yeah, it's not uncommon, it seems.
From my experience with them, it seems a lot of children have a rudimentary form of pantheism from a young age; they see everything as alive and with feelings (animism) and frequently see no separation between themselves and other things. I don't know how consistent it is, though, as I've not probed too much into it.

My kids wouldn't even leave things outside in case they "got sick". My wife was the same, and I was, too.

Weird, eh?

 

[McBell]

Been catholic.......and almost a priest because of it.

Science cannot disprove God.
It cannot form an experiment.
No 'proof' can be rendered by experiment.

But science would have you believe in a great many other things.
Like nothing moves without 'something' to move it.
And the universe had a starting 'point called a singularity.

In the beginning.......

And that is what you so desperately cling to....

 

[McBell]

There is absolutely no evidence that babies are atheist.

What evidence is there that babies believe in a god?

Without belief in a god, they would be atheist...

 

[Falvlun]

What evidence is there that babies believe in a god?

Without belief in a god, they would be atheist...

...If that's how you're defining atheism.

 

[McBell]

...If that's how you're defining atheism.

I am merely not ignoring inconvenient definitions of the word...

 

[Willamena]

I am merely not ignoring inconvenient definitions of the word...

Yes, it's terribly convenient that babies and rocks are atheist.

 

[Falvlun]

I am merely not ignoring inconvenient definitions of the word...

Huh?

You are ignoring a valid definition of atheism: The belief that gods do not exist. Or even something along the lines of choosing (or realizing) that one doesn't believe in the existence of gods.

Your post indicated that you only accept one definition of atheism: The lack of belief in the existence of gods. Your post ignored the existence of any others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Being specific is not necessary. Also it would break the rules of the forum to name any members and state that they are arrogant *****s.

You don't need to call someone names to point out a problem.

Being specific is necessary for you to communicate your concern effectively. If you don't care about being understood, that's your prerogative.

You didn't respond to the crucial question in my post.

I didn't respond to your loaded question. It would be putting the cart before the horse to answer a question based on dubious premises before those premises have been explored fully.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know most theist do not give two craps has to whether an atheist believes or not. You are just not that important to us. We can take you or leave you for all that atheism really matters to us. Unlike some of you atheist who seem to have a stalker-like obsession with us theist.

People who don't care about atheists don't participate in threads complaining about atheists.

 

[McBell]

Huh?

You are ignoring a valid definition of atheism: The belief that gods do not exist. Or even something along the lines of choosing (or realizing) that one doesn't believe in the existence of gods.

Your post indicated that you only accept one definition of atheism: The lack of belief in the existence of gods. Your post ignored the existence of any others.

I accept the fact that the word "atheist" has more than one meaning.

I also accept the fact that being an atheist only requires ONE of the definitions to be true.

I am not the one ignoring the definition "lack of belief in a deity" in order to claim that babies are not atheists.

Now since the only definition of atheist that applies to babies is the lack of belief one, I did not think it necessary to explain why the other definitions are irrelevant.

My sincere apologies for assuming to much.