Is atheism the teenage revolt years?

[Sunstone]

I was thinking about god and punishment. To my sons I am very much like God. I hand out punishments and tell them no when they want to hear yes. I also make them do things they don't want to do.

This is all for there betterment, so that they can be productive as adults. Currently they are adolescents.

When they become teenager's they are going to revolt. They will believe they know better than me(they will know somethings better I'm not god). They will want to leave my house. They will want to live there own way.

Then when they become adult's they will realize some truths. There will be a balancing of our lives. Although father and son we will be more compromising.


Now all people don't go through all stages. What I am equating this to is our religious beliefs.

Theist - Child State
Atheist - Teenage State
Agnostic - Adult State

What do you think

What an asinine thread.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What an asinine thread.

I wish I had said that.

It's basically "I am great, and everyone else sucks. And I'm not joking."

It's cute when I do it, but when someone else does it, it's just tasteless.

 

[idav]

What do you think

I don't think that a child can really believe their father does not exist but kids certainly eventually learn that their parents are not infallible. It would just go from theistic to agnostic. Atheist would be more for a dead beat parent that ran off or what not.

 

[Photonic]

I'm an atheist probably because I'm a physicist, and I see no need for a deity to explain anything in nature. It would simply be extra baggage.

There are a few other reasons but that's a biggie.

The steps I became an atheist in?

Child - Forced indoctrination to a religion. In this case Christianity.

Teen - Agnostic, realization that my indoctrination had blinded my view of science, things simply were not logical with God involved.

Adult - I did away with theistic views entirely for lack of evidence supporting their conclusions.

Maybe a little naturalistic but evidence speaks for itself. If in the future a deity becomes measurable, I will change to accommodate that.

 

[bobhikes]

Two points:

- we're not talking about your point of view, we're talking about the point of view of some hypothetical atheist... something that you say you're not. You can't impose your own view on theirs and still have something that can be judged fairly..

My thread my view, I asking what others think and you do not agree fair enough. I am entitled to my beliefs and stating them you do not have to play along.

- strictly speaking, we're also not talking about the existence of God; we're talking about a relationship with God. I don't know about you, but I'm incapable of having a relationship with something if I'm not sure it exists at all. The agnostic - if he's being intellectually honest - is no less "rebellious" than the atheist. If, in your analogy, the atheist is the child who's so upset with his parents that he pretends they don't exist, then the agnostic is the child who acknowledges that they do exist, but refuses to call them.

.

Agreed we are not talking about a relationship with god or God at all really. I am equating the interactions of Atheists, theists and agnostics with a definition of god and how humans relate(act) to there father as they age.

Every Atheist on this site interacts with a defintion of god or else you'd have nothing to debate.

 

[waitasec]

More like
Theist = innocence
Atheist = challenging
Agnostic = compromise

With relation to a father figure because everyone's going to say theists aren't innocent and I'm not saying they are

you mean from the fathers (parents) POV, right?

innocence is ignorance (ignorance isn't stupidity)
a theist takes in the dogma at face value as a child will understand the inflection of the word "no", right?
the nerve to challenge the status quo is arrogance...the sense of importance is undue until proven to be so.
and with experience comes compromise as one has experienced both, because we were once younglings ourselves

this is not to say that theists are not arrogant (those who question the status quo) or compromising (more tolerant than their predecessors) either...

 

[Onkara]

Adult - I did away with theistic views entirely for lack of evidence supporting their conclusions.

Maybe a little naturalistic but evidence speaks for itself. If in the future a deity becomes measurable, I will change to accommodate that.

Do you think god is a measurable object that doesn't exist?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My thread my view, I asking what others think and you do not agree fair enough. I am entitled to my beliefs and stating them you do not have to play along.

They say that you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. It's contradictory to think that a person who has rejected the existence of God also believes that it's impossible to reject the existence of God. If you're going to approach this discussion with this mindset, then you effectively tell us that we don't need to look for any logic or reason in the masturbatory self-aggrandizing exercise you've engaged in with this thread.

Agreed we are not talking about a relationship with god or God at all really. I am equating the interactions of Atheists, theists and agnostics with a definition of god and how humans relate(act) to there father as they age.

Every Atheist on this site interacts with a defintion of god or else you'd have nothing to debate.

And every child interacts with a definition of "parent", even the ones who don't interact with their parents. And I'd place the people who aren't sure whether their parents are alive or dead squarely in the category of people who don't have this interaction, so if you're saying that this lack of interaction comes from "teenage rebellion", then you're tarring yourself with your own brush.

 

[waitasec]

lol
I see it like this
athiest = arrogance (egocentricity)
agnostic = ignorance (not sure)
theist = deliverance (liberation)

as a child one is protected because of innocence...there isn't a deliberate deliverance on the childs part...

 

[bobhikes]

you mean from the fathers (parents) POV, right?...

Agreed.

innocence is ignorance (ignorance isn't stupidity)
a theist takes in the dogma at face value as a child will understand the inflection of the word "no", right?
the nerve to challenge the status quo is arrogance...the sense of importance is undue until proven to be so.
and with experience comes compromise as one has experienced both, because we were once younglings ourselves ...

I agree innocence isn't stupidity, but would define it as willingness to listen no prejudice.

challenging is fine and good pratice it is not arrogance, however I do agree with a hightened belief in self.

Its more willingness to compromise maybe from experience but not necessary.

this is not to say that theists are not arrogant (those who question the status quo) or compromising (more tolerant than their predecessors) either...

agreed

 

[bobhikes]

They say that you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. It's contradictory to think that a person who has rejected the existence of God also believes that it's impossible to reject the existence of God. If you're going to approach this discussion with this mindset, then you effectively tell us that we don't need to look for any logic or reason in the masturbatory self-aggrandizing exercise you've engaged in with this thread..

Never said you couldn't reject the existance of god. You are still dealing with a defintion of god or we couldn't communicate. As to facts I don't believe I gave any its all opinion.

And every child interacts with a definition of "parent", even the ones who don't interact with their parents. And I'd place the people who aren't sure whether their parents are alive or dead squarely in the category of people who don't have this interaction, so if you're saying that this lack of interaction comes from "teenage rebellion", then you're tarring yourself with your own brush.

Not at all. I'm saying the way a typical teenager acts to their parents is eerily similar to how an atheist acts to the definition of god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not at all. I'm saying the way a typical teenager acts to their parents is eerily similar to how an atheist acts to the definition of god.

I was a teenager myself. Neither I nor even the most rebellious of my friends ever denied the existence of their parents.

 

[bobhikes]

I was a teenager myself. Neither I nor even the most rebellious of my friends ever denied the existence of their parents.

Your stuck on gods existence nothing in this thread is about gods existence its all about your behaviour towards the definition of god. Which you clearly rebell against.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your stuck on gods existence nothing in this thread is about gods existence its all about your behaviour towards the definition of god. Which you clearly rebell against.

That's foolish. As I said before: I can't have a relationship with something I don't think exists.

And your insight into what I think is much less clear than you make it out to be.

 

[Me Myself]

For some people, yes.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think unsubstantiated certainty is more juvenile than honest doubt and wonder.

 

[idav]

Your stuck on gods existence nothing in this thread is about gods existence its all about your behaviour towards the definition of god. Which you clearly rebell against.

Your talking more like maltheism like what lucifer did like a teenager would do. It doesn't mean atheism because atheists don't believe the father exists. Really its speculative though since I'm not sure if fallen angels have a problem believing god exists.

 

[bobhikes]

That's foolish. As I said before: I can't have a relationship with something I don't think exists.

And your insight into what I think is much less clear than you make it out to be.

Agreed you can't have a relationship with something that doesn't exist but it is a useful tool to understanding to equate things. I can understand the atheist as a teenager and it gives me a greater understanding of the atheist.

 

[bobhikes]

Your talking more like maltheism like what lucifer did like a teenager would do. It doesn't mean atheism because atheists don't believe the father exists. Really its speculative though since I'm not sure if fallen angels have a problem believing god exists.

That is not what I saying.

 

[idav]

That is not what I saying.

I'm just saying atheism doesn't need to be equated with anarchy. Similar and probably both are prone from a teenage angst perspective but they are different things. With parents atheism doesn't apply.