How old were you when you stopped being atheist?

[cablescavenger]

Remind me - which faiths accept mothers as Gods on the basis they look after babies?

I never said any do.

 

[Kathryn]

I never said any do.

Oh good. I wondered if you were implying that some do. Your statement wasn't clear to me.

 

[cablescavenger]

Wow, you have memories from before birth? That's AMAZING - please share!

And your kids have told you about their memories from before birth, and right afterwards too - this is absolutely awesome. I want to hear all about it!

Or are you saying that if we don't remember something, it didn't happen or we never knew it? Hmmm, ever spent any time with someone with short term memory loss?

As for your last question - it's ridiculous. You don't know what is going on in the mind of infants, or the unborn. You could not possibly know. You can only guess. That's called conjecture.

By the way, I never said that my own beliefs about this topic aren't conjecture. In fact, that's the only thing we seem to agree on.

I'm not arrogant or short sighted enough to claim otherwise. As, apparently, others are.

I said nothing about pre-birth.

Nice to know you are resorting to changing my words in order to discredit me and try and strengthen your position. It means you have realised the futility of your argument :flirt:

Parents do more to misrepresent childhood development than anybody else. You know the kind of thing baby loves mommy, baby wants mommy, baby can sense these things, baby is special.

Truth is baby is developing.

 

[Kathryn]

I said nothing about pre-birth.

Nice to know you are resorting to changing my words in order to discredit me and try and strengthen your position. It means you have realised the futility of your argument :flirt:

Parents do more to misrepresent childhood development than anybody else. You know the kind of thing baby loves mommy, baby wants mommy, baby can sense these things, baby is special.

Truth is baby is developing.

I'm not changing your words, unless you don't think a fetus at, say, 36 weeks gestation is a baby.

I assumed that you might consider a 5 pound, 36 week fetus a baby, but I could be mistaken. If so, my bad. I also assumed that when you said you had children, they are your biological children and that you spent some time with the mom while she was in late pregnancy, but I could be wrong on that count as well.

As for all that "discrediting you" bull ****, give me a break. If I wanted to discredit you, I'd say you seem to be suffering from a victim complex.

There is more than one truth here. Yes, babies are developing. That goes without saying. The other truth is that you don't know what infants can remember from before birth and early infancy and for how long they retain those memories, if indeed they do at all.

 

[Mathematician]

I've been an atheist since middle school and it's only been reinforced by introverted thinking since then. In recent years I'm generally apathetic about others' beliefs if they leave me alone and don't use it to justify the exploitation of other human beings. I have no tremendous fear of death. The human part of me wishes that I could live on and leave a legacy, but one of the greatest lesson I've learned is that there's worse things in this universe than dying.

I'm drawn to the idea that we create meaning. As a physics major, I have an undying passion for learning about this world, promoting my own happiness and sharing it with others.

 

[Me Myself]

Cheers for explaining the typo. That makes more sense.



You are using one set of superstitions to try and justify another. There are plenty of existing beliefs which just aren't true. I don't see why you think that putting them forward is a determining factor in whether it should be accepted by me as a belief since I am not religious.

That said I do feel you are misrepresenting the faiths. How many of these faiths accept mothers as Gods on the basis they look after babies? and does that apply to other animals too?

None of your questions are relevant here.

Wheter they "rightly" believe in god or not is not important. The important thing is if they are atheists. For being an atheist you have to disbelief on anything that seems TO YOU to be a god.

For a baby, the mother has all the qualities that for a person God would have. So in what sense can a baby be an atheist?

 

[cablescavenger]

Oh good. I wondered if you were implying that some do. Your statement wasn't clear to me.

Nope. Me Myself said all Mums can be considered Gods. My response was contrary to this. The response was pretty clear, you just missed the rest of the conversation leading up to the response.

 

[cablescavenger]

None of your questions are relevant here.

Wheter they "rightly" believe in god or not is not important. The important thing is if they are atheists. For being an atheist you have to disbelief on anything that seems TO YOU to be a god.

For a baby, the mother has all the qualities that for a person God would have. So in what sense can a baby be an atheist?

You don't have to disbelieve in anything to be an atheist, just not believe in a God.

As an example Hindus have many Gods, so let's assume it is the only religion, and we have to determine who is atheist and who isn't.

Theist - believe in a deity

• A knows all the Hindu Gods and believes in them all
• B knows just one of the many Gods but believes in that single God, they are theist.

Atheist - lack belief in a deity

• C has never heard of Hinduism or God, they are atheist
• D does know what Hinduism is but doesn't believe in any God is an atheist.

You see, a baby would be C.

 

[Kathryn]

Nope. Me Myself said all Mums can be considered Gods. My response was contrary to this. The response was pretty clear, you just missed the rest of the conversation leading up to the response.

LOL I didn't say your response wasn't clear. I said it wasn't clear TO ME.

And apparently my words are not clear to you, either!

 

[Me Myself]

You don't have to disbelieve in anything to be an atheist, just not believe in a God.

I know.

Though "God" as a word is completely unimportant. Hindus don´t believe in ""God"" (english word), the believe in Devas, in Brahaman, in Ishwara, in trimurti, in mahadeva, etc.

It´s not necesarily about having the word or verbal construction of what God is.

Given that, a baby has it´s mother as a God figure, given that she has the attributes that are most common to be attributed to God according to the baby´s mind.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Never stopped. Always been an Atheist.

 

[cablescavenger]

I know.

Though "God" as a word is completely unimportant. Hindus don´t believe in ""God"" (english word), the believe in Devas, in Brahaman, in Ishwara, in trimurti, in mahadeva, etc.

It´s not necesarily about having the word or verbal construction of what God is.

Given that, a baby has it´s mother as a God figure, given that she has the attributes that are most common to be attributed to God according to the baby´s mind.

You might call the mother God, but newborn babies develop through the use of their senses. This link explains the process of brain development, and it is pretty clear young babies go through a lot of brain development but they start off with very little understanding of the world around them. That includes mother.

 

[Draka]

If a person who is ignorant of what the concept of deity is can be considered atheist then not only can some people who would be theist upon knowledge of deity concepts be erroneously called atheist, but it infers ignorance in being a natural state of atheism.

It is almost amusing to see the semantics games that so often get played by some atheists who to try to not only distance themselves from the perceived dirty word of "belief", but to try to make out like atheism is a sort of default position for humans, as if they are somehow naturally right while everyone else has just been deluded at some point.

Ignorance truly is the only default position when it comes to anything. Only after the ignorance is cured can one be classified as anything other than just ignorant...period.

 

[ChristineES]

If a person who is ignorant of what the concept of deity is can be considered atheist then not only can some people who would be theist upon knowledge of deity concepts be erroneously called atheist, but it infers ignorance in being a natural state of atheism.

It is almost amusing to see the semantics games that so often get played by some atheists who to try to not only distance themselves from the perceived dirty word of "belief", but to try to make out like atheism is a sort of default position for humans, as if they are somehow naturally right while everyone else has just been deluded at some point.

Ignorance truly is the only default position when it comes to anything. Only after the ignorance is cured can one be classified as anything other than just ignorant...period.

Best answer, yet!

 

[Kathryn]

If a person who is ignorant of what the concept of deity is can be considered atheist then not only can some people who would be theist upon knowledge of deity concepts be erroneously called atheist, but it infers ignorance in being a natural state of atheism.

It is almost amusing to see the semantics games that so often get played by some atheists who to try to not only distance themselves from the perceived dirty word of "belief", but to try to make out like atheism is a sort of default position for humans, as if they are somehow naturally right while everyone else has just been deluded at some point.

Ignorance truly is the only default position when it comes to anything. Only after the ignorance is cured can one be classified as anything other than just ignorant...period.

I agree with Christine - this is the best answer yet on this thread! DRAKA YOU WIN!!!!

 

[Draka]

Best answer, yet!

I agree with Christine - this is the best answer yet on this thread! DRAKA YOU WIN!!!!

Thank you to both of you.

 

[Apex]

I agree with Christine - this is the best answer yet on this thread! DRAKA YOU WIN!!!!

Thirded!

 

[work in progress]

If a person who is ignorant of what the concept of deity is can be considered atheist then not only can some people who would be theist upon knowledge of deity concepts be erroneously called atheist, but it infers ignorance in being a natural state of atheism.

Yes, there is a case to be made that our natural intuitive thinking system that develops before we are able to reason our way through evidence, makes us inclined towards supernatural beliefs....at least from the perspective of dual process theory (that our subconscious intuitive thinking and conscious reasoning systems work independently and often in conflict with each other). I've had this article from U.K. Times review of a lecture by British psychologist Bruce Hood for a few years. Unfortunately the article is no longer archived so the link doesn't work, but here's the main points in brief:

Religion and other forms of magical thinking continue to thrive, in spite of a lack of evidence and the advance of science, because people are naturally biased to accept a role for the irrational in their daily lives, according to Bruce Hood, Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol.

This evolved credulity suggests that it will be impossible to root out belief in ideas such as creationism and paranormal phenomena, even though they have been refuted by evidence and are held as a matter of faith alone.

People ultimately believe in them for the same reasons as they attach sentimental value to inanimate objects like wedding rings or teddy bears, and recoil from artefacts linked to evil, as if they are pervaded by a physical "essence".

Even the most rational people behave in these irrational ways, and supernatural beliefs are part of the same continuum, Professor Hood told the British Association Festival of Science in Norwich today.
​

For further information about Prof. Hood's findings on how we are affected by teleological thinking and what he refers to as "essentialism" -- the vitalistic belief that living creatures have their own unique spirits that can be imprinted on inanimate objects that they've owned or even handled, I would suggest picking up his book: Supersense: Why We Believe The Unbelievable for a detailed explanation. In short, they appear to be misapplications in early childhood, when we begin categorizing our world and developing a theory of mind.

And speaking of theory of mind, guess what happens to children who have some dysfunction in that ability to understand other minds? People with Asperger’s less likely to see purpose behind the events in their lives | Observations, Scientific American Blog Network Children with aspergers are more likely to turn out atheists than the general population (depending on their upbringing of course) because they bypass teleology and go straight to finding a natural explanation for an event. Similar findings are made with higher functioning autistic children.

To me, what this all boils down to is we don't really start out with valid reasons to believe or not to believe in God or world that has a higher purpose. Our hardwired drive to understand other minds leads most of us to assume their are "minds" where there are not, and the lack of ability to understand other minds would also make someone more inclined not to see supernatural explanations. Hopefully, the net result of greater understanding of the mind will lead to an appreciation that we all don't need to...and probably shouldn't approach the world exactly the same. I am not really challenged by other people's beliefs in God and desire to believe, as long as they aren't trying to impose that belief in government and education, and can accept that some of us prefer to use natural explanations for the world as our default position until there is clear evidence for something that's really supernatural.

It is almost amusing to see the semantics games that so often get played by some atheists who to try to not only distance themselves from the perceived dirty word of "belief", but to try to make out like atheism is a sort of default position for humans, as if they are somehow naturally right while everyone else has just been deluded at some point.

Ignorance truly is the only default position when it comes to anything. Only after the ignorance is cured can one be classified as anything other than just ignorant...period.

Atheism is based on a lack of belief.....but you've likely heard this many times already! But, everyone has beliefs. The challenge for atheists is that there is no unifying naturalistic philosophy that unites us together. Some of us are nihilists, some are humanists, and that puts us down separate paths even before we get to the political differences -- libertarian vs. socialism etc., or whether we should be trying to reverse evangelize to deconvert people into atheism.

 

[`mud]

Draka,
We should study your term "cured".
The value of ones ability to see around this premise,
is the instructional level in the "curing" this cancerous condition.
Only in the very young is this condition found, ignorance is bliss.
When the baby falls, does it become "cured" by your standards ?
And how did it come to be in the treetop at all ?
The situation of being an unbeliever isn't gained by the baby,
nor a young child, nor a young adult, they are all taught to believe.
I choose to live my non-belief about the myths of the elders,
in my doing towards others, and take their instruction,
however feebly put, as as guide to properly address others.
No amount of praying or worshipping can affect my humanity,
but the idolation of some unseen god, can and will do harm.
Do Christians kill and maim other Christians,
or other religious beings, from all beliefs,
does praying and worshipping help ?
I will continue to do good to all,
and harm none,
even in absence of worship of a myth from my youth.
And I can hear the pounding of Bibles from here,
and the fear of satan, and god, and most of all,
the notorious holy ghost of the prime fable.
~
Oh well.....it doesn't do any good, the fear is felt,
and your gods will punish you in some way I'm sure.
~
`mud

 

[illykitty]

I think we make our own reality. If you believe in something often it happens and I think my spiritual beliefs are what are going to happen to me. Same with whatever others believe in, it will happen to them. That's how I reconcile the different ideas. People will claim their God(s) is the true one(s), well I reply, it is the true one for them.

I don't believe in an Abrahamic God (which Atheists always refer to, other ideas exist!), mine is truly compassionate, merciful and forgiving. Mine doesn't scare you with hell, eternal punishment. So why believe? It feels right and to me, from my understanding of the universe, I see no reason why a deity like mine wouldn't exist and set things that are explained by science in motion (like the Big Bang). How else would it have happened anyway? My beliefs explain things to me. Perhaps I'm wrong but I am NOT hurting anyone. So why are Atheists so aggressive about it?

I don't base my life on a book written by men, I don't follow any morals someone dictated to me... The only thing I follow is law, unless it came against my golden rule of doing whatever I want as long as it harms no one. If law said to harm, then I would have to go against it or leave. I have some more morals but everyone has their own morals. My point is that it isn't imposed on me nor do I try to impose them on others.

What is so wrong with believing if I do not discredit science? If science ever prove to me that divinity doesn't exist, I would probably stop believing. The only part of my life in which I do not use logic is spirituality, again, unless someone showed 100% evidence that I am wrong. I can admit being wrong but I have not seen a single thing that says otherwise.

What is so wrong in believing in a God that tells you to be your best, your true self, accomplish your potential and if you fail, you get given endless chances? What is wrong with believing that having such a being on your side gives you hope, motivation and makes you feel good about yourself?

I just wonder what is the motives of Atheists at times... Do you want theists to lose their hope, spirituality and drive? I know you be a good person anyway, because I was an Atheist before but honestly, I am a lot happier now that I have spirituality. I believe that I am capable of those things and I do not want it taken away (well not that you can literally do that but it sounds like that is what you want to do).

I'm not trying to label every Atheist as bad, plenty keep their (dis)belief to themselves (as I keep mine to myself unless the subject pops up and I am being asked) but those keep looking down on others, I feel their motives are questionable and they make themselves look like they have a superiority complex.