To atheists: did you always lack faith in God?

[S.A.M.]

Did you always lack faith in God? Or did you lose faith that you had?

In other words, were you born an atheist or did you become one after thinking about it?

[(Q)]

Everyone is born an atheist, Sam. You were born an atheist. You still are an atheist, you just believe in one more god than me.

[S.A.M.]

Dawkins would be horrified to hear that. According to him, branding a child as an atheist is child abuse.

And, by the way, I think it would also be abuse to talk about an atheist child.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins

[spidergoat]

I had faith in everything I was told, especially in magical things, ESP, telepathy, Gods, spirits, etc... But I lost it after I realized that those things were just made up. I didn't learn about Santa Claus because I'm Jewish, but some of my friends believed it. That made me wonder about what else were lies too.

[Star6966]

in general it is an arrogant assumption to assume that your religion is right because that means that everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong

to me they all seem equily implausible so i chose to believe none of them but observe all of them critically and without bias

[(Q)]

Dawkins would be horrified to hear that. According to him, branding a child as an atheist is child abuse.

Gosh Sam, the brilliance of your insight is mind boggling. Were you born a Muslim, Sam?

[S.A.M.]

Just trying to prevent child abuse, I know how self righteous you are on the subject
:D

[(Q)]

Just trying to prevent child abuse, I know how self righteous you are on the subject
:D

You must be so proud of yourself. Congratulations. :bravo:

Too bad the same wouldn't apply with your own children, if you had any, that is.

[Star6966]

but forcing children to have religion drilled into their head is equily cruel

[CutsieMarie89]

All children are born atheists. You probably don't believe much of anything when you're born. You just observe I assume. I used to have a very strong faith. I went to Christian schools from 1st to 7th grade and I was with Mennonites for 6-7th grade and they had me brainwashed pretty good. In 8th grade I still had faith, but I wasn't as crazy since I was no longer around the Mennonite brethren (they're all related). My freshman year my latin teacher slapped us all with an astounding reality that I had never even thought of before. Then the rest of that year and my sophomore year I wrestled with what I had been taught my whole life and my new found logic. I wanted to believe in God so badly I even went to church, which I never did before. But try as I might the more I thought about God the more his story started to match that of Santa Claus. I wanted to believe but the seed of doubt had grown and I just couldn't. It wasn't even a choice I had conscientiously made. But I'm a skeptic and I think all legends come from something based in fact, so I remain agnostic on both the issues of the existence of God and the existence of Santa Claus.

[S.A.M.]

but forcing children to have religion drilled into their head is equily cruel

What about language, education, vaccines, cuisine, dress, morality, discipline? Should you force all these on your children? What if they want to wear make up like Hannah Montana and high heels and a bra at nine? Should you impose your beliefs on them?

[Star6966]

social acceptance is one thing but beliefs is completely different. they should be taught what is known as right and wrong in society but they should determine the rest for themselves

[S.A.M.]

But social acceptance depends on the society. And so does ideas of right and wrong. Don't parents perpetuate social ideas by brainwashing their kids into the culture, language, religion and ideologies of right and wrong?

[(Q)]

What about language, education, vaccines, cuisine, dress, morality, discipline? Should you force all these on your children? What if they want to wear make up like Hannah Montana and high heels and a bra at nine? Should you impose your beliefs on them?

If it meant one were to burn in hellfire for an eternity, their entire wardrobes would be filled with Hannah Montana clothing.

One dimension = Sam.

[Star6966]

but kids should be left alone in religous teachings until they are at an age where they can think logicly about everything they are being taught

[S.A.M.]

Do you believe the same about ideas of right and wrong, language and education?

[Star6966]

but with right and wrong, the teaching are only necessary to get by in the society they live in. kids today question everything they are taught and language isnt an idea it is a means of comunication

[S.A.M.]

Don't be silly, the kids are obviously brainwashed. Clearly, we are blocking independent thinking and genetically inbuilt morality by imposing parental notions of structured schooling and discipline on children. Clearly, we should wait till kids are old enough to choose for themselves. In fact, as language develops the cognitive process, parents are introducing bias by forcing their own language choices on their children.

[CutsieMarie89]

I think children should be taught the religion of their parents, they just shouldn't be forced to keep it should they decide that it's not really what they believe. My mother was Catholic and she taught me quite a few catholic values and I also went to Christian school I don't think it made me worse for wear because of it. But when I started to reconsider my religious beliefs my parents didn't force me to continue.

[Star6966]

but common knowledge and highly debated ideals are 2 different things.

[Star6966]

you make a very good point CutsieMarie

[S.A.M.]

but common knowledge and highly debated ideals are 2 different things.

Common knowledge? Like what? Is it wrong to cover your face?

[(Q)]

Don't be silly, the kids are obviously brainwashed. Clearly, we are blocking independent thinking and genetically inbuilt morality by imposing parental notions of structured schooling and discipline on children. Clearly, we should wait till kids are old enough to choose for themselves. In fact, as language develops the cognitive process, parents are introducing bias by forcing their own language choices on their children.

Ah, I see you still haven't figured out the difference between indoctrination and teaching. Or, you actually do know and you're creating strawmen arguments for the fun of it.

[Star6966]

Common knowledge? Like what? Is it wrong to cover your face?

more like it is wrong to set fire to someones house or steal somthing

[S.A.M.]

Don't be silly, you get medals for doing that when you're in the army.

[iceaura]

Dawkins would be horrified to hear that. According to him, branding a child as an atheist is child abuse. So? Dawkins has many opinions. Lots of atheists share only some of them.

Meanwhile, the idea that talking about a child as having politically significant theological opinions they cannot actually have is abuse, is probably context dependent.

Meanwhile, I am reasonably certain that children do not have faith in God until they have some idea of what some word for "God" means, some appropriate concept to have faith in, which would be what - about age 3, at the earliest, and 5 or 6, more reasonably ? Unless faith in Mom is equivalent, in which case we all started out theists and the poll is answered.

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, like they have no concept of mother or father. You can imprint kids with any notion.

[iceaura]

Yeah, like they have no concept of mother or father. You can imprint kids with any notion. ? Too cryptic.

[S.A.M.]

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n14/experimento/lorenz/index-lorenz.html

[iceaura]

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n14/e...ex-lorenz.html Just say what you think. The little games with code references are boring.

[Zakariya04]

this is always a tricky one as it so so so subjective..... I guess really it comes down to your perspective on things.

i mean one could argue (and i think i ahve already - albeit very badly) that everyone is a muslim or at least half muslim when they are born, this is because to be a muslim you have to submit to the laws / will of God, Nature from an Islamic point of view is run by God. Therefore before you develop your understanding of things you just breathe, eat, go for a pee or po and sleep, which means that you are basically governed by the laws of nature which in turn are governed by God.

But then again if you do not believe in God then you will think i am talking nonsense..which of course i probably am!

[KennyJC]

Did you always lack faith in God? Or did you lose faith that you had?

In other words, were you born an atheist or did you become one after thinking about it?

I never genuinely had faith.

After years of catholic schooling, I just went along with the whole god thing because...

a) I was too young to understand the concept of evidence and the supernatural

b) I accepted it based on authority. Our teacher said if we didn't believe in god we would be kicked out of the school.

But for as long as I've been old enough to question such matters, I've known that I was fed lies and there is no reason to believe in god or religion.

[retaxis]

i have faith in people not some random bullcrap that some delusional people thousands of years ago said existed.

[SkinWalker]

Did you always lack faith in God?

That might depend on which god you're referring to.

[S.A.M.]

The one(s) you are an atheist to, of course.

[phlogistician]

I never really believed in God, .. sure, I was told about him, went to a Christian School and sang hymns in the mornings, and had one hour of religious education per week, but no, it all sounded like bullshit. Still does.

[phlogistician]

The one(s) you are an atheist to, of course.


Here's a task for you Sam. List all the gods ever invented, and work out what percentage atheist you are.

I would list them for you, but I already know I'm 100% atheist, so there's little point in me doing the research.

[S.A.M.]

According to Islam there was a Prophet to all peoples, its all one God. :shrug:

[SkinWalker]

The one(s) you are an atheist to, of course.

Zeus, Apollo, Quetzacoatl, Thor, Mithros, Dionysus, Jupiter, Ptah, Atun, Seth, .... and thousands more. Never had faith in them.

[S.A.M.]

So were you brought up atheist or Did your religious upbringing never affect you?

[Dr Lou Natic]

I took it for granted that there was a god, but never really let it affect my lifestyle. I remember mostly just being pissed off with god when bad things happened. I'd just be confused and think "wtf? Why did you do that? fuck you" when a he-man figures arm would fall off or something like that.

When I was between eight and 10 I read "the trials of life" by david attenborough and somehow I just came to the realisation that the whole idea of god and religion was bullshit.

I wouldn't say I ever had faith, to me faith implies knowing better but lieing to yourself, suppressing rational thought and struggling to hold onto an absurd idea despite it's obvious flaws.
As soon as I first had a rational thought I dropped the idea of a god like it was a hot potato.

[SkinWalker]

Neither of my parents ever talked to me about gods, either extant or extinct. They left that up to me to sort out, unfortunately.

I say "unfortunate" because I was left to "go with the flow" and, while I was born an atheist like everyone else, by time I reached the age of seven or so, I accepted that a god existed a priori. I remember questioning this existence many times over the course of my youth. Once, in particular, as I came back from the local Baptist church my cousins belonged to. Their parents were devoutly religious and took their kids so, staying the night with them, I had to tag along.

We had a lively discussion about their god which was, apparently, supposed to be mine too.

I finally abandoned all superstition about gods while in the military. I never really felt comfortable when it came time to "pray" during events and often found myself looking around at the other soldiers expressions, more interested in their dedication to the ritual than the magical words being uttered by the cult leader we referred to as "chaplain."

And it was about this time that I started thinking of religion in exactly those terms. As if I were an anthropologist from an alien planet evaluating the quaint superstitions of a primitive culture.

That period put it all into perspective for me and I haven't felt an ounce of "faith" for any god(s) since. In fact, I don't think I ever really had "faith" to begin with since I was always questioning and curious about why we were expected to believe the way we did. I was always uncomfortable with the silliness of "prayer" and "grace" at the diner table, events, or even in church. It felt fake, put-on, and wierd.

[Nasor]

Since so far as I can remember that idea of a god didn't occur to me on its own, I would have to say that I was probably born an atheist.

[Betrayer0fHope]

Dawkins would be horrified to hear that. According to him, branding a child as an atheist is child abuse.



http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins

Cause Dawkins represents all of the atheists, right?

[Nasor]

Cause Dawkins represents all of the atheists, right?
Many theists like to base beliefs around authority. Since Dawkins is a well-known atheist, people assume that discrediting Dawkins as a person will somehow discredit atheism in general (in the same way that discrediting the bible could discredit Christianity, or discrediting Mohammad could discredit Islam). You also often see theists trying to do the same sort of thing in reverse, where they argue that theism is likely to be correct because Einstein/Newton/Whoever was a theist. Again, the idea is that since this famous person is supposed to be "an authority" that scientifically-minded atheists respect, atheists will be likely to reconsider their beliefs (or lack of beliefs) when they hear that an "authoritative" person disagreed with them.

Of course an atheist is likely to simply shrug and say "Just because they were right about some physics doesn't mean that they were right about religion," but many theists don't realize that because they just don't think that way - they want there to be authoritative sources of truth, and they naturally tend to assume that other people think the way they do.

[Michael]

As a child I had a vivid imagination. I loved the children Bible stories. I liked SciFi and Fantasy books as well. I would have LOVED Harry Potter back then. I also had a love for history. At some point I decided to read up on the history of Christianity and a few years later became atheist.

[phlogistician]

According to Islam there was a Prophet to all peoples, its all one God. :shrug:

That wasn't my question though, was it?

I didn't ask what the perspective of one religion was, but how many gods man had named, and what percentage atheist that makes you.

You can't cop out and say 'there is one god', because that's not how polytheists think, they have distinct deities.

So, what percentage are you?

[S.A.M.]

because that's not how polytheists think, they have distinct deities.

Which ones?

[Cellar_Door]

Which ones?

Pagans, Wiccans, Hindus (although it could be argued that they are aspects of one deity) etc.

[S.A.M.]

Pagans, Wiccans, Hindus (although it could be argued that they are aspects of one deity) etc.

Oh like the Isma al Husna?

[Pete]

Cause Dawkins represents all of the atheists, right?
He does not, of course, but that's not what Sam said or implied.

Anyway, Dawkins's point was specifically about the fallacy of labeling a child as holding some particular moral or philosophical worldview based on the beliefs of the parent, rather than directly about whether atheism is a default state. He does imply, however that atheism is a chosen point of view, rather than default condition.

There is good reason or this. Regardless of the arguments about the semantics of 'atheist' and 'atheism', the term is always used in practice to describe someone who has consciously decided not to believe in a deity.

In other words, saying that a young child is an atheist makes exactly as much sense as saying that a rock is an atheist.

[Pete]

You can't cop out and say 'there is one god', because that's not how polytheists think, they have distinct deities.
Cop out or not, there are some that say that polytheists may be both wrong and right: perhaps right, because the gods in question might in fact exist; but wrong, because if they do exist, they are not distinct from the one God.

But regardless, I don't know that it's a productive line of argument. "Atheism" implies lack of belief in any intelligent, powerful, supernatural being - it's not really sensible to apply the term individually to specific god-descriptions.

The only conclusion that particular argument could reach is that someone does not believe in certain things... but so what?

[phlogistician]

Cop out or not, there are some that say that polytheists may be both wrong and right: perhaps right, because the gods in question might in fact exist; but wrong, because if they do exist, they are not distinct from the one God.

It's not what people think of polytheists that matters, but what polytheists think themselves.

The question is simple; How many gods are there that have been described, and how many of them do you believe in?

Add those up and give us a percentage of your atheism.

Don't meta-analyse, just do the maths please.

[phlogistician]

Which ones?

All of them, and quit dodging.

[iceaura]

There is good reason or this. Regardless of the arguments about the semantics of 'atheist' and 'atheism', the term is always used in practice to describe someone who has consciously decided not to believe in a deity. By theists. That's a theist, and an over narrow, perspective. The degree to which atheistic people (a better usage, IMHO) consciously decide not to believe is up for debate and varies considerably by individual.

Quite a few theists, as well as atheists, claim to have no real choice in the matter - we don't usually describe a theist as someone who consciously decided to believe in a deity.

He does not, of course, but that's not what Sam said or implied. Yes it is. SAM requires of all atheists that they answer for her description of Dawkins's alleged opinions and stances, as representing atheism generally.

[amark317]

In other words, were you born an atheist or did you become one after thinking about it?

You can only convert to atheism by thinking.

Anyway, I was raised christian, and then thought, and know I'm an atheist

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Interesting. I was raised christian, thought, and tried wicca, thought some more, became an atheist, thought some more, and now I'm back to christianity. I guess it just depends on how much you are willing to think.

[Nasor]

Interesting. I was raised christian, thought, and tried wicca, thought some more, became an atheist, thought some more, and now I'm back to christianity. I guess it just depends on how much you are willing to think.
Okay, you have GOT to explain what thoughts lead you to believe that wicca should be taken seriously. Wasn't that religion just made up in the first half of the 20th century?

[Medicine*Woman]

Neither of my parents ever talked to me about gods, either extant or extinct. They left that up to me to sort out, unfortunately.

I say "unfortunate" because I was left to "go with the flow" and, while I was born an atheist like everyone else, by time I reached the age of seven or so, I accepted that a god existed a priori. I remember questioning this existence many times over the course of my youth. Once, in particular, as I came back from the local Baptist church my cousins belonged to. Their parents were devoutly religious and took their kids so, staying the night with them, I had to tag along.

We had a lively discussion about their god which was, apparently, supposed to be mine too.

I finally abandoned all superstition about gods while in the military. I never really felt comfortable when it came time to "pray" during events and often found myself looking around at the other soldiers expressions, more interested in their dedication to the ritual than the magical words being uttered by the cult leader we referred to as "chaplain."

And it was about this time that I started thinking of religion in exactly those terms. As if I were an anthropologist from an alien planet evaluating the quaint superstitions of a primitive culture.

That period put it all into perspective for me and I haven't felt an ounce of "faith" for any god(s) since. In fact, I don't think I ever really had "faith" to begin with since I was always questioning and curious about why we were expected to believe the way we did. I was always uncomfortable with the silliness of "prayer" and "grace" at the diner table, events, or even in church. It felt fake, put-on, and wierd.

*************
M*W: Your story is my story. Talking about god in my youth was never brought up. In fact, I always had the innate feeling that talking about god or even saying the word "god," was strictly forbidden. Like you, I tagged along to the local primitive baptist church with my friends. I think it was somewhat encouraged by my parents to go, even if they didn't go. It was time they had alone without me, which I'm sure they desperately looked forward to!

Because of my childhood experience with this foreign 'god' being, I more or less forced it onto my children, going all the way to convert to Roman catholicism and immerse our lives into the RCC. I did this blindly. I did this because it was something I never really had. I look back now, and I think I did this because of my rebel spirit. I never followed the beaten path. I always wanted to be different and stand out (only child syndrome). So, I became a part of something bigger than me. Of course I realize now that religion is what people make of it, and I just don't see it anymore as being something bigger than me. My feelings and my beliefs are more important to me than an organized religion, and I don't have the need to be a part of anything more important than my family. But that's just me.

I wonder how many other people had experiences similar to the both of us?

[Medicine*Woman]

Cause Dawkins represents all of the atheists, right?

*************
M*W: I've never read Dawkins.

[Medicine*Woman]

As a child I had a vivid imagination. I loved the children Bible stories. I liked SciFi and Fantasy books as well. I would have LOVED Harry Potter back then. I also had a love for history. At some point I decided to read up on the history of Christianity and a few years later became atheist.
*************
M*W: Yes, it seems that the more one learns and knows about christianity, and I mean with an in depth immersion into christianity, the more one is likely to become an atheist. I can't say this about other religions, just christianity.

I asked in another thread what brought others to atheism. This is a subject I want to pursue. Let me know what brought you all to atheism.

[Medicine*Woman]

Oh like the Isma al Husna?
*************
M*W: Just answer Phlog's question.

[Medicine*Woman]

You can only convert to atheism by thinking.

Anyway, I was raised christian, and then thought, and know I'm an atheist
*************
M*W: Like I've always said, becoming an atheist is not something that happens over night. It takes years of reading, learning and thinking about *_________* religion to come to the understanding that whatever religion it is, it is a false belief. Some people choose religion over thinking. They are called theists. Some people choose thinking over religion. They are called atheists. For those who find themselves stuck between the fear of god and the fear of thinking what might just be true are called agnostics. But who wants to live in fear?

[Medicine*Woman]

Interesting. I was raised christian, thought, and tried wicca, thought some more, became an atheist, thought some more, and now I'm back to christianity. I guess it just depends on how much you are willing to think.
*************
M*W: I can understand the desire to find the core of religious belief. I've been there, too. It was important, in my thinking process, to find the one true religion, so I searched and searched and searched.

As a child, I followed. I went along to the baptist church with my school friends. There was always something not right in my gut feeling about christianity. As a teenager, I questioned everything. I wanted to believe that I could find the only true religion, so I pondered within (nothing strange for a teenager). As a young adult, married with children, I wanted to give my children a spiritual direction, so I converted to catholicism and was hell bent to scorch the Earth with catholicism. Those I first scorched, however, were my children and raised them as Roman catholics.

As they were becoming adults, I continued to search for reason, and christianity became less and less able to take me beyond a certain point of understanding when I wanted to go the distance. I consulted my priest, and he basically told me to stop questioning, so I became discontented and I began my own private search for the truth that would take me years to do.

It was a long, drawn out process, through years of research and re-education, to come to the understanding that all of this god/religion/ritual/salvation/eternal life was false. It's only a figment of one's imagination. It's all a false hope. It doesn't really exist but only in the minds of those who can't face the truth.

It sounds from your post that you chose to think but not believe, and then you went on to your own search for the truth. Then you turned around and chose to believe and not think, and went back to your old religious comfort zone. Somewhere in your mind, you still have doubts about christianity, or you would have never gone elsewhere. I think your desire now is to follow the christian crowd, so you won't be alone. I've been there, and I'm not dissing you about your beliefs. I'm interested in the process of the search and why it led you 360 degrees. The point I'm trying to make is, once a person learns the truth, that is usually where they will stay in the process. What was more important to you, the truth you found from your search, or your need for a familiar comfort zone?

[S.A.M.]

All of them, and quit dodging.

Not dodging. You'll have to tell me which polytheists you think believe in many gods. All the ones who I have heard described as polytheists (e.g. Hindus) are not really polythiests.

See this thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58358

For example, I find no disconnect between how the Hindus define God from the way I do.

So which polytheists are you specifically referring to?

[visceral_instinct]

Why do you refer to it as a lack of faith, SAM? Would you speak of a 'lack' of schizophrenia, or a 'lack' of dissociative disorder?

[S.A.M.]

Don't ask me, I learned it from the atheists here. I refuse to say lack of belief though, thats just too much.

[iceaura]

Don't ask me, I learned it from the atheists here. I refuse to say lack of belief though, thats just too much. If you reword things to suit yourself, don't claim to have obtained your wording from others in the same line of the post, would be my advice.

For example, I find no disconnect between how the Hindus define God from the way I do. But outsiders who deal with Hindus and Muslims both, do find important differences in their conceptions of deity.

To the point that the different Gods involved are often easily distinguishable, to outsiders who believe in none of them.

One of the questions of interest that has come up here is whether one must have faith in something to have faith.

In particular, did those who lacked faith in a God as children lack faith ?

[S.A.M.]

In particular, did those who lacked faith in a God as children lack faith ?

Thats what I'm trying to figure out. Are some people incapable of faith and just arrive at that realisation at different points in time?

[Pete]

By theists. That's a theist, and an over narrow, perspective.
I really don't think so. Can you cite an example of a non-theist using "atheist" to refer to anyone other than those who have considered and rejected the existence of God?
The degree to which atheistic people (a better usage, IMHO) consciously decide not to believe is up for debate and varies considerably by individual.

Quite a few theists, as well as atheists, claim to have no real choice in the matter - we don't usually describe a theist as someone who consciously decided to believe in a deity.
True, but missing the point to a degree. My fault, due to an insufficiently precise choice of words.
What I should have said is the term is always used in practice to describe someone who is conscious of the idea of a deity, has considered the question of whether a deity exists, and does not hold a belief in the existence of a deity.

Yes it is. SAM requires of all atheists that they answer for her description of Dawkins's alleged opinions and stances, as representing atheism generally.
It is not what was said or implied in the post in question. Following that track in this context is just being argumentative, sidestepping the question raised.

[(Q)]

Thats what I'm trying to figure out. Are some people incapable of faith and just arrive at that realisation at different points in time?

Nah, faith is simply a suspension of disbelief, anyone can do that. :yawn:

[Pete]

It's not what people think of polytheists that matters, but what polytheists think themselves.
In this case what matters is what Sam thinks. Or is she not permitted to think that a polytheist is wrong about something?

The question is simple; How many gods are there that have been described, and how many of them do you believe in?

Add those up and give us a percentage of your atheism.

Don't meta-analyse, just do the maths please.
The 'maths' makes no sense in relation to the conclusion you imply.
If someone believes in Yahweh, then denying the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't make them atheist. Not even a little bit.

[Pete]

Thats what I'm trying to figure out. Are some people incapable of faith and just arrive at that realisation at different points in time?
I thought it was well accepted that everyone has faith?
Atheists have faith in things too

Someone was is incapable of faith is incapable of functioning.

[iceaura]

Can you cite an example of a non-theist using "atheist" to refer to anyone other than those who have considered and rejected the existence of God? One easy example would be the numerous posts on this forum that have referred to atheistic religions, such as some forms of Buddhism and various NA Red religions and the like - the fact that most Western adult atheists have at some time had a deity of some kind pushed at them (difficult to ignore) is not a safe circumstance from which to draw conclusions about atheistic human beings in general.

Consider a practitioner of an atheistic religion who meets a Pentecostal missionary, and after consideration is not persuaded. Have they then become an "atheist", without having changed any of their beliefs ?
"Thats what I'm trying to figure out. Are some people incapable of faith and just arrive at that realisation at different points in time? "
”
I thought it was well accepted that everyone has faith? Your'e dealing with SAM - in that world, faith does not exist unless it is faith in something, something definable and nameable.

If everyone has faith, then it is possible to have faith as a quality of character, without having a nameable object of it. It's common,in fact, in children and people raised outside of a formal theistic religion. That would be the case in my world.

Yes it is. SAM requires of all atheists that they answer for her description of Dawkins's alleged opinions and stances, as representing atheism generally.
”
It is not what was said or implied in the post in question. I respectfully disagree. I think it was. SAM takes "Dawkins" (her version of him, essentially a label she applies to her idea of atheistic thought and approach) as representing true atheism, the honest common center of all atheistic approach. Atheistic folks who claim to disagree with "Dawkins" are being inconsistent, and are either confused or in denial, in her view.

[phlogistician]

Not dodging. You'll have to tell me which polytheists you think believe in many gods. All the ones who I have heard described as polytheists (e.g. Hindus) are not really polythiests.

See this thread:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58358

For example, I find no disconnect between how the Hindus define God from the way I do.

So which polytheists are you specifically referring to?

All of them, and this is just another lame stalling attempt Sam.

Pick a pantheon or two, Roman or Greek, and tick off which deities you believe in.

Oh, and the Hindu religion definitely seems to be polytheistic to many. You might cite that Brahman is the supreme being, but that's not an exact match with monotheistic viewpoints, is it? There are different gods, with different names.

Anyway Sam, quit dodging, list all the gods you have ever heard of, and say whether you believe in them.

[JDawg]

Thats what I'm trying to figure out. Are some people incapable of faith and just arrive at that realisation at different points in time?

Perhaps. I never had faith, despite going to a Catholic school as a child and growing up around moderately religious parents. It's not like I actively tried to avoid it; I just never had it.

Even so, I think that to assume atheism is an active belief system is false. It really is just not having a belief. You're not wrong to say it's a lack of faith; that's exactly what it is, actually. Some may say they know there is no god and call themselves atheists, but I would think of them as anti-theists rather than atheists. For them, they are convinced that there is no god. Me, and any other logical atheist, would rather just stick to the truth: We don't believe in one.

[superluminal]

Faith in a god creature is just a fun way for some to while away the time since they have nothing better to do.

Meh.

[superluminal]

Anyway Sam, quit dodging,...
Ha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Ohhhh... my sides hurt!

[one_raven]

You left out people who aren't atheists, but still lack faith in God - which seems to be the case for most self-proclaimed "atheists" I have met.
They hate God - if you hate God, you obviously don't lack belief in God.

[superluminal]

You left out people who aren't atheists, but still lack faith in God - which seems to be the case for most self-proclaimed "atheists" I have met.
They hate God - if you hate God, you obviously don't lack belief in God.
Semantic games. Most self-proclaimed atheists I know (in fact, all of them) simply do not believe this god fable, along with the thousands of other fanciful fables we don't believe in.

Do I hate gnomes? No. I simply give them zero weight as real entities.

Gnomes, gods, dragons, fairies, flying reindeer, trolls, gray aliens, ghosts, etc...

What is the fundamental difference between any of them? I can only see one. God(s) promise that your daddy is watching over you all the time and you will get to live with him for eternity. Yay. We all feel better. Otherwise, they are all fundamentally the same. Dress em' any way you want.

[one_raven]

Semantic games.

Bullshit.
Yes, there are a lot of Atheists who lack belief in God.
There are also quite a lot who refer to themselves as Atheists because they either hate God (he took away my baby - he lets people suffer - he called for war blah, blah, blah) or because they hate the church they were raised in, but they still do not lack belief in God.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Semantic games. Most self-proclaimed atheists I know (in fact, all of them) simply do not believe this god fable, along with the thousands of other fanciful fables we don't believe in.

Do I hate gnomes? No. I simply give them zero weight as real entities.

Gnomes, gods, dragons, fairies, flying reindeer, trolls, gray aliens, ghosts, etc...

What is the fundamental difference between any of them? I can only see one. God(s) promise that your daddy is watching over you all the time and you will get to live with him for eternity. Yay. We all feel better. Otherwise, they are all fundamentally the same. Dress em' any way you want.

You don't believe in gnomes, dragons & fairies!!!?????
My mother warned me about people like you.

[John99]

Bullshit.
Yes, there are a lot of Atheists who lack belief in God.
There are also quite a lot who refer to themselves as Atheists because they either hate God (he took away my baby - he lets people suffer - he called for war blah, blah, blah) or because they hate the church they were raised in, but they still do not lack belief in God.

That is true and most are not even Atheist's. Dont get me wrong, lets not push them into a religious belief system because there is the propensity toward fanaticism. Maybe we should leave well enough alone.

[phlogistician]

In this case what matters is what Sam thinks. Or is she not permitted to think that a polytheist is wrong about something?

You don't seem to grasp the point. It is that polytheists believe one thing, and monotheists another. If you don't believe in polytheism you are an atheist wrt it's gods. It's not about who thinks what is right or wrong, but what you believe in .


The 'maths' makes no sense in relation to the conclusion you imply.
If someone believes in Yahweh, then denying the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't make them atheist. Not even a little bit.

It exactly does. Atheism applies to all gods. Maybe monotheists are so arrogant to think that there is only one god, and all atheism relates to their one god, but that is fallacious. I am an atheist and I don't believe in any gods! BTW, the monotheist God acknowledges the existence of other Gods, maybe you should read the Old Testament.

The point you don't seem to grasp about the FSM is that while clearly it is a made up deity, so are all the others. Why should one god, despite how absurd, have more credibility than another? No reason at all. That's the point.

Anyway, SAM, as always, is dodging, because she is seemingly incapable of honesty in debate.

Anyway, SAM, here's a list of major gods;

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_myth_gods_index.htm

Please C&P and tick off the ones you believe in, so we can do the maths.

[Pete]

Phlogistician, you're twisting the language for rhetorical purposes in an attempt to make someone look bad. It's pretty weak.
As you say, atheism applies to *all* gods. That is precisely what it means. If someone believes in any god (even just one), then they're not atheist.

[phlogistician]

Phlogistician, you're twisting the language for rhetorical purposes in an attempt to make someone look bad. It's pretty weak.
As you say, atheism applies to *all* gods. That is precisely what it means. If someone believes in any god (even just one), then they're not atheist.

No, if someone does not believe in 99% of the described gods, then they are 99% atheist. Do you believe in Pan, Loki, and Ganesh? No? Then you are an atheist wrt those gods. It's relative see, is that too subtle for you? Can't you entertain such an idea? Need it black and white?

Theists do not find stories of other people's Gods compelling, but will go to great lengths to tell you why their faith is the right one. This exercise shows the hypocrisy in that position.

[S.A.M.]

Phlogistician, you're twisting the language for rhetorical purposes in an attempt to make someone look bad. It's pretty weak.
As you say, atheism applies to *all* gods. That is precisely what it means. If someone believes in any god (even just one), then they're not atheist.

You're arguing with someone who thinks an atheist "lacks belief". Give it up. :p

[phlogistician]

You're arguing with someone who thinks an atheist "lacks belief". Give it up. :p

SAM, I am an atheist, do you dare tell me what I think?

Anyway SAM, yet another dishonest dodge from you. You could have responded to my question, but, being incapable of honesty, you swerve.

But please, don't change, you are the perfect example of religion rotting the mind.

[(Q)]

Phlogistician, you're twisting the language for rhetorical purposes in an attempt to make someone look bad. It's pretty weak.
As you say, atheism applies to *all* gods. That is precisely what it means. If someone believes in any god (even just one), then they're not atheist.

Theism - The doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods.

Atheism - A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

I suppose theists are both theists and atheists at the same time? Curious...

[S.A.M.]

SAM, I am an atheist, do you dare tell me what I think?

Anyway SAM, yet another dishonest dodge from you. You could have responded to my question, but, being incapable of honesty, you swerve.

But please, don't change, you are the perfect example of religion rotting the mind.

:rolleyes:

[(Q)]

But please, don't change, you are the perfect example of religion rotting the mind.

Rotting? ... or rotted?

[phlogistician]

:rolleyes:

Yet another wasted opportunity to acquit yourself.

You really are a twister, SAM.

[phlogistician]

I suppose theists are both theists and atheists at the same time? Curious...

Of course they can be, because atheists are not the opposite of theists, as some claim, so it's not a double think. It's an odd idea, perhaps, but no more odd than Pete's 'Get out of Jail' definition that belief in one deity excuses someone from having an opinion about all the others!

[superluminal]

Bullshit.
Yes, there are a lot of Atheists who lack belief in God.
There are also quite a lot who refer to themselves as Atheists because they either hate God (he took away my baby - he lets people suffer - he called for war blah, blah, blah) or because they hate the church they were raised in, but they still do not lack belief in God.
tihslluB.

Those who believe in god but hate "him" for one or another of the reasons you stated are NOT atheists. If they refer to themselves as such, then they need a slap upside the head with a dictionary.

[superluminal]

You're arguing with someone who thinks an atheist "lacks belief". Give it up. :p

Once again:

"A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods; A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the existence of all gods"

Four different "flavors" there of a sampling of widely used "definitions". We atheists (ungodly, demon-spawn... wait a second... ummm...) fall under the broad category of people who simply do not believe, lack belief, or deny the existence of, god(s).

So can we please all STFU about our own personal definitions of the variations of the word "atheist"?

Theist = Believes in god(s), thinks atheists are narrow minded fools with a distorted view of reality

Atheist = Dosen't believe in god(s), thinks theists are narrow minded fools with a distorted view of reality

[Norsefire]

I think, using a "scientific method" frame of thought, many people would convert to atheism, but in the end nobody has a clue if there are higher powers or not.

I think agnsoticism is the most intelligent stance because it's the only valid stance. Weak atheism isn't a "stance", so it doesn't count, and strong atheism is a rather foolish stance, as is "strong theism"


Therefore I consider myself an agnostic Theist. The reason I have faith in God is mostly cultural and philosophical, and because I think religion is important to social function

[one_raven]

tihslluB.

Those who believe in god but hate "him" for one or another of the reasons you stated are NOT atheists. If they refer to themselves as such, then they need a slap upside the head with a dictionary.

I couldn't agree more.
I have a big, heavy 1971 edition of the OED we can use.

[S.A.M.]

Once again:

"A person who does not believe that deities exist; one who lacks belief in gods; A person who believes that no deities exist; one who denies the existence of all gods"

Heh, so you believe in phlog's bullshit too?

/hi supe ;)

[superluminal]

I think, using a "scientific method" frame of thought, many people would convert to atheism, but in the end nobody has a clue if there are higher powers or not.

I think agnsoticism is the most intelligent stance because it's the only valid stance. Weak atheism isn't a "stance", so it doesn't count, and strong atheism is a rather foolish stance, as is "strong theism"

So, are you a Santa Clause agnostic? An Easter Bunny agnostic? You it's the only valid stance to give serious credence to the idea of the easter bunny whenever the subject comes up?


Therefore I consider myself an agnostic Theist. The reason I have faith in God is mostly cultural and philosophical, and because I think religion is important to social function
That's nice. I also think religion is important to social function. Cultism, ostracism, ideological genocide, denial of evolutionary history, etc, would never work nearly as well in society without religion.

[Norsefire]

So, are you a Santa Clause agnostic? An Easter Bunny agnostic? You it's the only valid stance to give serious credence to the idea of the easter bunny whenever the subject comes up? No, but I've already explained why God and those other concepts are not similar. The others have no basis, therefore I have no reason to consider them. "God" does (and I've explained extensively on numerous occasions why God has a basis), therefore it becomes a serious possibility worth discussing

Of course I'm speaking only of the concept of a "god" not any specific religion or God in general. The actual details that religion creates don't have a basis, JUST THE CONCEPT.


That's nice. I also think religion is important to social function. Cultism, ostracism, ideological genocide, denial of evolutionary history, etc, would never work nearly as well in society without religion.

Cultism is not "bad"; every real society is basically a cult. Of course it depends on what kind of cult that is, that makes it bad or good

I meant only the social unity and cultural conformity functions that religion provides. Otherwise not everyone will be conform and conformity is very important.

Not like robots but to a degree.

[superluminal]

Heh, so you believe in phlog's bullshit too?

/hi supe ;)
Hey sam! Didn't you know? I've joined the cult of Mierda del Toro GrandeTM! I'll believe anything now. Makes everything sooo much easier...

[superluminal]

I have a big, heavy 1971 edition of the OED we can use.
Ouch!

[John99]

I officially declare myself an Atheist. @ 9:53pm John99 ahs officially become an Atheist, on this day in the year 2008, in the evening at this time i am an Atheist.

[superluminal]

...JUST THE CONCEPT.

Ok. I get it. But the concept, like every other concept, gets old after several tens of thousands of years (or more) of contemplation and study, with only hearsay to support it.


Cultism is not "bad"; every real society is basically a cult. Of course it depends on what kind of cult that is, that makes it bad or good

I meant only the social unity and cultural conformity functions that religion provides. Otherwise not everyone will be conform and conformity is very important.

Not like robots but to a degree.
Ohhh...K. We'll just agree to disagree a bit on this one.

[superluminal]

I officially declare myself an Atheist. @ 9:53pm John99 ahs officially become an Atheist, on this day in the year 2008, in the evening at this time i am an Atheist.
Good for you. Now what? :shrug:

(Or do we need to get you a big dictionary to wack yourself with?)

[Norsefire]

Ok. I get it. But the concept, like every other concept, gets old after several tens of thousands of years (or more) of contemplation and study, with only hearsay to support it. The concept doesn't "get old" it just remains a concept. Fact of the matter is, our universe either was created or wasn't. Those are the only two options. Either it came to be without being intentionally created, or it was intentionally created. Neither are ridiculous ideas.

Ohhh...K. We'll just agree to disagree a bit on this one.

I don't think this is something you can disagree with. Society is inherently, by concept, rigid and intolerant, and religion helps, not to make it rigid or intolerant but to actually specify what structure it will have.

[one_raven]

The concept doesn't "get old" it just remains a concept. Fact of the matter is, our universe either was created or wasn't. Those are the only two options. Either it came to be without being intentionally created, or it was intentionally created. Neither are ridiculous ideas.
Or it is temporally infinite.
3 options.


I don't think this is something you can disagree with. Society is inherently, by concept, rigid and intolerant, and religion helps, not to make it rigid or intolerant but to actually specify what structure it will have.

Then you'd be mistaken.
I think it's nonsense.

[superluminal]

The concept doesn't "get old" it just remains a concept. Fact of the matter is, our universe either was created or wasn't. Those are the only two options. Either it came to be without being intentionally created, or it was intentionally created. Neither are ridiculous ideas.

This I can 66.666...% agree with. The other 33.333...% possibility is that it has no beginning or end. It just IS.


I don't think this is something you can disagree with. Society is inherently, by concept, rigid and intolerant, and religion helps, not to make it rigid or intolerant but to actually specify what structure it will have.
What society do you live in? I'm a spoiled middle-class American. I live by the rule of law, but I wouldn't characterize it as "rigid and intolerant". In fact, it seems extremely flexible and open-minded. :confused:

[superluminal]

Or it is temporally infinite.
3 options.

Yea. That ^^^^^^ :D

[Norsefire]

Or it is temporally infinite.
3 options. That is true as well, of course, but the universe itself can't have been infinite

God, on the other hand, could have been a First Cause. I know what you're thinking, "what created God", but remember "time" as we know it might not have existed prior to the universe therefore for something to be "eternal" is possible and we really have no clue in the end about the mechanics of reality

Then you'd be mistaken.
I think it's nonsense.

Nope, it's the truth. A society is people with common ground, often times cultural, moral, or both, or behavioral. Religion just helps to regulate it. But there's all sorts of alternatives, such as nationalism.

[John99]

Good for you. Now what? :shrug:

(Or do we need to get you a big dictionary to wack yourself with?)

Now what is the problem? I was bullshitting anyway i will never change from being an agnostic. It is the only ting that makes sense to me.

[Norsefire]

What society do you live in? I'm a spoiled middle-class American. I live by the rule of law, but I wouldn't characterize it as "rigid and intolerant". In fact, it seems extremely flexible and open-minded. :confused:

The rule of the law isn't society though, and the US is not one society. A society isn't just "live and ignore other people". "live and let live" isn't social.

[Norsefire]

Now what is the problem? I was bullshitting anyway i will never change from being an agnostic. It is the only ting that makes sense to me.

Bravo. I'm a cultural theist but also an agnostic as to the existence or nonexistence of God.

[S.A.M.]

What society do you live in? I'm a spoiled middle-class American.

So is he. :rolleyes:

[Norsefire]

I'm not spoiled

[John99]

Bravo. I'm a cultural theist but also an agnostic as to the existence or nonexistence of God.

That is understandable.

[S.A.M.]

I'm not spoiled

You're an only son, though.

[one_raven]

That is true as well, of course, but the universe itself can't have been infinite
Why not? :shrug:

Nope, it's the truth. A society is people with common ground, often times cultural, moral, or both, or behavioral. Religion just helps to regulate it. But there's all sorts of alternatives, such as nationalism.
And often times not rigid or intolerant at all.
Religion, on the other hand, is quite often intolerant by nature and by design.

[superluminal]

Bravo. I'm a cultural theist but also an agnostic as to the existence or nonexistence of God.
Only because, as you've said many times, that god has a credible basis but the easter bunny or santa do not.

I deem god to have no more or less of a credible basis than the easter bunny and therefore I'm remain a "god atheist" not a "god agnostic".

Your stance that 'agnosticism towards god is the only valid stance' belies a strong underlying bias and non-objectivity.

[superluminal]

So is he. :rolleyes:
Really? Which parallel reality?

[S.A.M.]

He's a second generation Syrian American in post 9-11 America.

[superluminal]

You're an only son, though.
You guys in some sort of club or something? :bugeye:

[superluminal]

He's a second generation Syrian in post 9-11 America.
Oh. Ok then...

[John99]

For me being Agnostic does not limit me to what your or anyone's impressions of what "God" may be. I accept the possibility of higher lifeforms mainly because there are lower life forms.

[superluminal]

For me being Agnostic does not limit me to what your or anyone's impressions of what "God" may be. I accept the possibility of higher lifeforms mainly because there are lower life forms.
Which makes good sense. The likelyhood of us being the pinnacle of lifeforms is pretty slim. But how does this bear on the existence of a mystical, supernatural creator of the cosmos?

[Norsefire]

You're an only son, though. I'm so amazed at your knowledge of my family but you're incorrect.

I'm the only person here, however, so I only have to provide for myself.

Why not? Time exists in our universe, therefore for it to be infinite is illogical. However anything outside our universe isn't necessarily affected by "time"

And often times not rigid or intolerant at all.
Religion, on the other hand, is quite often intolerant by nature and by design. All true societies are "one way" , and religion helps to guide which way that is exactly

No such thing as a "tolerant society". There's tolerant nations and tolerant regions but no tolerant society.

Only because, as you've said many times, that god has a credible basis but the easter bunny or santa do not. Yes

I deem god to have no more or less of a credible basis than the easter bunny and therefore I'm remain a "god atheist" not a "god agnostic". That would be incorrect because santa clause and the easter bunny have absolutely no basis whatsoever, where as a "god" does. Anything with an actual basis shouldn't be dismissed. If the concept of god had no basis, why has it come up in every civilization? Whereas santa clause and the tooth fairy haven't because they are pure imaginings, they have no initial logic or observation behind them. The concept of a god does, which is the observation of intelligence and the influence of intelligence on complexity.

[Norsefire]

Oh. Ok then...

Actually she's incorrect. I have been here a long time and am a citizen now but I'm not second gen.


superluminal, you just made a brilliant point:

Which makes good sense. The likelyhood of us being the pinnacle of lifeforms is pretty slim. But how does this bear on the existence of a mystical, supernatural creator of the cosmos?

One thing you're missing is what "supernatural" is. Supernatural would just not be of this nature. And higher intelligence can exist, certainly, and probably does.

A god would be nothing more than an influential higher intelligence. Even if the Christian God existed, he is still just an advanced being

Also what is "mystical"; even magick requires an underlying mechanic, and so "magick" is nothing more than just that.

[superluminal]

That would be incorrect because santa clause and the easter bunny have absolutely no basis whatsoever, where as a "god" does. Anything with an actual basis shouldn't be dismissed. If the concept of god had no basis, why has it come up in every civilization? Whereas santa clause and the tooth fairy haven't because they are pure imaginings, they have no initial logic or observation behind them. The concept of a god does, which is the observation of intelligence and the influence of intelligence on complexity.
This would be wholly incorrect. I'm far too tired now to provide the numerous examples of mythical entities that appear in common throughout history, across civilizations, that aren't gods, but have better logic and observation behind them.

Your strong statements regarding the relative credibility of "god" seem to me to be self reinforcing. Nothing more.

[Norsefire]

Of course gods have a good underlying basis:

Intelligence can influence
Intelligence can influence complexity
We are complex
[Everything either is "intelligent" or has no "intelligence"]
Therefore, we either were created or were not
We are complex
We might have been created


[Religion]

We must have been created

[superluminal]

superluminal, you just made a brilliant point:
[QUOTE]
Gracias! :)


[QUOTE]
One thing you're missing is what "supernatural" is. Supernatural would just not be of this nature. And higher intelligence can exist, certainly, and probably does.

A god would be nothing more than an influential higher intelligence. Even if the Christian God existed, he is still just an advanced being

Also what is "mystical"; even magick requires an underlying mechanic, and so "magick" is nothing more than just that.
Then we're talking about two very different conceptions of god. The common perception of god as an unknowable, unfathomable entity "beyond nature". Not just some super-advanced lifeform.

[Norsefire]

I'm talking about the latter, but that latter could also be a former. That super advanced life form could be something we just don't understand, so naturally we attribute "magic" and "mysticism" to it. A god would just be an influential intelligent being.

[Pete]

I am an atheist
Just to be sure, are you 100% atheist? :D

[phlogistician]

Heh, so you believe in phlog's bullshit too?


Sam, I am an atheist, and I know what I think.

Seems you want to attach a load of baggage to the term, because you cannot debate honestly. Keep at it though, you aren't improving your reputation here.

[phlogistician]

Just to be sure, are you 100% atheist? :D

I don't understand why you find this amusing.

[S.A.M.]

Just to be sure, are you 100% atheist? :D

:roflmao:

[one_raven]

Norsefire,

Define society.