CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
A form of arrogance...no. A form of ignorance? Well..umm...
-
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!
Fundamentalist Atheists
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
A form of arrogance...no. A form of ignorance? Well..umm...
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Same deal. On this case, we have two sides composed of humans.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Um, okay.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
I wish a baby would come on this forum and settle the whole matter once and for all. I would ask mine but she has better things to do.
Then why are you insisting that atheists must be proud of their atheism?
Nor reason, nor need. That is, after all, what it means already.
Clarity and accuracy.
Now that's the babies agenda.
'Clarity' and 'accuracy' that fails to make sense.Clarity and accuracy.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
The primary "use" it seems to have is to somehow paint atheism as a morally superior position by virtue of being some kind of "default," or more natural, state for human beings. It seems to be more of a misuse to me, not only of semantics, but also of reason and intent.
yoda89
On Xtended Vacation
A child genetic makeup and enviorment in which they devolop can impact what they choose to believe. However, to begin they are a blank slate except for their inheritant traits. These inheritit trates do not give a perspective on an organized religion or a God. They may develop their meaning gradually on their own and I am perfectly fine with that.
If you argue that atheism is a choice and not an inherent trait you could have a point. However, comparing a living thing to a nonliving thing in order of a defense isnt much of a counterpoint. If you have seen a rock and a child you will notice a learge difference.
You may disagree with the wording. However, this does not change the point. We can change words to suit our arguements. But we do not truly judge by definitions. We judge by actions. For example, what is boxing. We can say boxing is boxing. But that doesnt explain what boxing is. We can say boxing is two people getting into a ring and hitting each other. Just as what is a child beliefs. Well they are atheist. What is this action? They dont believe in a organized religion until they are told about it.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Everyone should let their freak flag fly high.
But since we are changing the meaning of words around here, why can't I redefine atheist as to mean "a person ignorant of the existence of god" or as a "person lacking in the mental acuity needed to discern the spiritual"?
Works both ways you know.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
So the definition of atheism now include a lack in belief of organize religion?
OK, since you are going to persist in saying babies are atheist, step up to the plate and give us evidence. Show us the studies and lab works that prove this. You can prove that babies are atheist can't you?
yoda89
On Xtended Vacation
The concept of the baby is a point that theism is created. If you truly are getting caught up on the baby being an atheist your missing the point.
Babies must be taught about organized learned to actually know about it. The reference to swine is nonbelievers. You cannot believe in an organized religion without it being taught to be true. It is heavily evidenced that if there is no one around to believe such a claim most people will not accept it. Relating to not teaching Roman mythology as truth. Given time and freedom of thought the child will view these organized religions as mythology.
Babies must be taught about organized learned to actually know about it. The reference to swine is nonbelievers. You cannot believe in an organized religion without it being taught to be true. It is heavily evidenced that if there is no one around to believe such a claim most people will not accept it. Relating to not teaching Roman mythology as truth. Given time and freedom of thought the child will view these organized religions as mythology.
IHaveTheGift
U know who U R
The idea that a baby is atheist ranks up with Dawkins claiming that theists are atheists because we dont believe in "Thor" or other Gods. 
Seriously?
Atheism is the firm believe that ALL Deities do not exist.
Not, "one God more than you"
Nonsense, a baby simply is not aware of anything yet.
Yes, Christ must be taught, why do you think God came to earth as a man?
Man was crooked and ignored Gods wishes.
"Given time and freedom of thought the child will view these organized religions as mythology"
that's why 80% or better of the world believes in a Deity ehhh?
Your reasoning is flawed because reality contradicts what you say.
A child is even smart enough to realize that the tooth fairy is not real, but he doesn't do that with God, does he?
Same with santa, by the age of 8 or so they realize santa is not real, again, why doesn't the world around us support your reasoning?
Seriously?
Atheism is the firm believe that ALL Deities do not exist.
Not, "one God more than you"
Nonsense, a baby simply is not aware of anything yet.
Yes, Christ must be taught, why do you think God came to earth as a man?
Man was crooked and ignored Gods wishes.
"Given time and freedom of thought the child will view these organized religions as mythology"
that's why 80% or better of the world believes in a Deity ehhh?
Your reasoning is flawed because reality contradicts what you say.
A child is even smart enough to realize that the tooth fairy is not real, but he doesn't do that with God, does he?
Same with santa, by the age of 8 or so they realize santa is not real, again, why doesn't the world around us support your reasoning?
Last edited:
You can do whatever you want. It would be wise to consider that your reputation will pay the price, though.
yoda89
On Xtended Vacation
You have already missed the point. Actions compose definitions. The action of being an atheist is not believing in a deity. Theism must be created it is not inherinet.
Children must be taught or learn through other resources about current organized religions. In this case Christainity in reference to teaching to nonbelieves as swine. When in fact all people who dont know would be swine.
If you didnt teach that Jesus was the son of God and reinforce it 99.99 wouldnt. Just as most view ancient Roman religion as mythology. Making your pearls of wisdom to nonbelievers the only means of it becoming widely accepted mythology.
IHaveTheGift
U know who U R
The idea that we are forced to believe in God is nothing short of an empty claim.
Millions and millions of people believe in God on their own, no one forces anything.
I know of kids that were not brought up in a religious house hold and went to church on their own and found merit in believing in God, nothing was forced on them.
Millions and millions of people believe in God on their own, no one forces anything.
I know of kids that were not brought up in a religious house hold and went to church on their own and found merit in believing in God, nothing was forced on them.
CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
Then if you believe that action compose definition rather than properties composing definition then you have to agree with me. An atheist actively disbelieves in the existence of deity. So since babies are not actively disbelieving or performing the action of being an atheist then they therefore cannot be atheist or theist for that matter.
I find such statements suspicious. My direct experience goes on much the opposite direction.