Are we born atheists?

It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that I'm against the labeling of children.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

false argument

atheism has a documented history of being at odds with science

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nonsense. Atheism is at odds with theism, nothing more.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

think again

Atheists have appealed to science in defence of their atheism since the first avowedly atheistic manuscripts of the mid seventeenth century. However, as the German expert on atheism Winfried Schroeder has shown, the relationship between early modern atheism and science tended to embarrass rather than strengthen the fledgling atheism's case.

 

that notions of "atheism" are just as socially constructed as "theism" or even "science" for that matter ... hence statements like wellwisher's "Qualitatively, if the small child was innately atheist at birth, they would be rational and scientific at birth, since this is how atheism is pitched." are not valid

 

The alchemists were among the original modern scientists and they were not atheists. Rather the alchemists saw a distinction between physical and spiritual reality. Many were clergy and doctors, educated by the church. Atheism attaches itself to science, later in history; parasite.

Although both religion and science are both independent entities with a life of their own, atheism is a parasite that only exists in the context of these two alive entities. Take away science and all mention of religion/god and what is left? All these discussion only occur because these hosts give the parasite life.

The original topic is, are we born atheists. If this was true, a natural form of atheism should exist, even without any conditioned connection to science or (anti) religion, since atheism did not invent science but merely attaches to it. What would atheism look like without these hosts? Or is it conditioned behavior?

A good question to ask yourself is, when did you become an atheist and was that due to an external induction; conditioned?

 

...:wallbang::frust::splat:

 

You dont have to be a theist to be like a theist.

 

I think I have always been, in effect, an atheist.

Perhaps for me, one cause for my atheism was that from early on, before age 2, I have been rejected by theists.
My parents didn't go with the common tradition here of baptizing infants, and after that, the rest of the family and the society here considered me a lesser being.

 

Likeness is in the eye of the likener.

 

You're blatantly ignoring the fact that your own definition of theism is also inconsistent with that provided by actual theists.

 

How?

 

The three links I provided earlier are examples of theists defining theism as a belief in a god, or as a position on the existence of a god or gods. In other words, anyone who believes in a god or gods is a theist (which is entirely consistent with what you'll find in dictionaries and encyclopedias).

Your own personal definition of theism is somewhat different. Earlier in this thread you said the following:

But the Conservapedia definition (as one example) reads:

It does not read:

Theism is a general term used to acknowledge the belief in [and complete devotion to] a Deity or deities. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, theism more narrowly means belief in [and complete devotion to] a deity that is both immanent in the world, but also transcendent, and is also omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Nor do any of the other definitions (whether provided by theists or others of unknown philosophical persuasion) read in a similar way.

In a nutshell, it seems that you're trying to make the definition of theism more specific than it actually is, to make it apply to less people. Although what is really going on of course is that you've simply confused theism with religious devotion.

 

I would think that from a theistic perspective,

Theism is a general term used to acknowledge the belief in a Deity or deities. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, theism more narrowly means belief in a deity that is both immanent in the world, but also transcendent, and is also omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

reads as

Theism is a general term used to acknowledge the belief in [and complete devotion to] a Deity or deities. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, theism more narrowly means belief in [and complete devotion to] a deity that is both immanent in the world, but also transcendent, and is also omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

Only if you look at my input from a strictly atheistic perspective.

 

Yes, we born atheists, and besides, god is a cultural idea.

 

And yet still, no likener applies likeness to the likened unless the likened suggests so.

 

In the same way that someone might think that being a philatelist necessarily entails complete devotion to the goal of amassing the most impressive collection of rare stamps possible, at considerable financial and personal expense, because they were once such a hardcore philatelist themselves, and knew a few other people who were as well. This is an inaccurate definition by association, which would also no doubt extend to the term "stamp collector". The truth is however, that philately doesn't even necessarily entail collecting stamps (it is, at a minimum, merely the study of them), and many of the philatelists who do collect treat it as nothing more than a relaxing hobby.

What you're trying to do here, wynn, is the equivalent of insisting that philatelists who don't collect, or philatelists who don't sacrifice for their collection, aren't really philatelists at all.

All you've been doing in response to the case I've made is to say "I think" and "but you're an atheist".

Great counterarguments you've got there.

 

I've read your previous posts. I believe the confusion is the way atheism and theism are essentially defined in common place in America. Perhaps (but I doubt it) words in Australia don't have connotation which overextends literal definition. Take for example this definition provided by Stanford University from the perspective of a Pantheist.

"1. Theism
Classical theism, or traditional theism: the understanding that ultimate reality is a being which is distinct from the world and any other reality. This distinction involves a separation between God and the world that makes any interaction between God and the world problematic."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/


The fact Stanford would provide definitions of terms within the context of different beliefs seems to preclude your belief an absolute universal definition is legitimate.