Just Say No to Atheism
- Thread starter (Q)
- Start date
I agree, stranger. We should stop potty training them too. They should be allowed their own decision, regardless of the parents' beliefs, about where, when and how to go potty.
Bells
Staff member
Heh..
My 18 month old is known to dash out of the shower, straight onto the carpet and pees, all while giggling manically and runs back to the shower again.:bawl:
No amount of "aarrrggghhhhh no no no go to the potty" has worked. So yeah, sometimes they do go by their own volition.. anywhere and anytime.
*Sigh*
Children are feral.
*************
M*W: Well, it would appear that
your toddler is quite normal.
Although I am a proponent of potty training, if we just didn't do anything, kids would be curious about potty habits and would learn from watching us. Maybe if we left our kids to their own instincts, there would be much less neurosis in them when they got older.
Just a thought.
MW-You are silly. You have kids, don't you? Do you honestly believe we should leave them to their own devices without parental guidance?
Bells-Could be worse. Mine used to crawl under the nightstand, take off the diaper, and poop. If we didn't catch the grunting noises, gawd what a mess.
Religious indoctrination does a billion times more harm than a lack of potty training does.
Someone who's been indoctrinated wouldn't realize this.
Someone who's been indoctrinated wouldn't realize this.
Stranger-A billion. You're sure? Not a thousand or a million or a trillion. You've measured then? How?
*************
M*W: Yeah, I have kids. I have grandkids. I have one great grandchild, so no, of course I don't believe in leaving them to their own devices. My point was that children learn by example. They love to copycat us. They like to act "big" to be more like us. If we didn't bother to potty train them, I think they would learn it on their own (not necessarily at an age we would be happy with), but they would eventually learn it on their own. What is so silly about human nature?
An agnostic is someone who doesnt want to admit they're an atheist. >.>
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
There are so many psychics on Sciforums. It is really cool.
The terms are not mutually exclusive. One is a position of epistemology; the other is a position of theology. Indeed, many are agnostic-atheists in that they contend that there is no good reason to accept that gods exist but acknowledge that the expanse of the universe prevents one from testing it empirically.
Personally, I prefer the term atheist. It's simple and to-the-point in meaning: a-theist, "without gods."
Regardless of whatever non-atheists wish to define it as, this is the definition I accept and use. I reject any other and if they intend a definition which is "denies God" (with the capital "G" no less) or "angry at God," or any of the other definitions that assume, a priori that a god exists and that this god is theirs.
But I accept the term "atheist" and want no other when it comes to describing my lack of religion or lack of belief in any god-character. True, we don't refer to those that don't drink milk as "a-milk-drinkers" or those that don't smoke as "a-smokers." But we might if milk-drinking or smoking were social systems that sought to drive national and political policy in any significant way.
These two examples are, however, significantly present as norms in human society, such that we have descriptive and useful labels that delineates those that are lactose-intolerant from those that enjoy milk; and the non-smokers from those that pollute small-spaces with second hand smoke.
Labels have utility. Atheism and atheist are utilitarian terms.
Besides, if they were given up, what on earth would I do with all my black T-shirts with that big, scarlet letter "A" on them?
Regardless of whatever non-atheists wish to define it as, this is the definition I accept and use. I reject any other and if they intend a definition which is "denies God" (with the capital "G" no less) or "angry at God," or any of the other definitions that assume, a priori that a god exists and that this god is theirs.
But I accept the term "atheist" and want no other when it comes to describing my lack of religion or lack of belief in any god-character. True, we don't refer to those that don't drink milk as "a-milk-drinkers" or those that don't smoke as "a-smokers." But we might if milk-drinking or smoking were social systems that sought to drive national and political policy in any significant way.
These two examples are, however, significantly present as norms in human society, such that we have descriptive and useful labels that delineates those that are lactose-intolerant from those that enjoy milk; and the non-smokers from those that pollute small-spaces with second hand smoke.
Labels have utility. Atheism and atheist are utilitarian terms.
Besides, if they were given up, what on earth would I do with all my black T-shirts with that big, scarlet letter "A" on them?
Aside from the tidbit that farmers and tobacco companies do actually have lobbyists that influence policies, I agree completely. I actually do prefer the term anti-theist for a person who takes such a hard stance on the existence of gods, but I suppose me defining their position is as audacious as a Christian trying to define mine.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
If it was a philosopher who is also an atheist who defines atheist as those who lack a belief AND those who believe there is no God, would you agree with her use of the word?
I know you didn't ask me this, but I certainly would accept that definition.