ZERO Tolerance - religious V non religious

[Avatar]

It's hard to talk with an ant, hence no reply.

 

[Muslim]

P1. God cannot create time & space
P2. God cannot create without time & space
C5. God cannot exist without time & space

Can you prove time to me? also can you prove space to me what is space?

Let me ask you a question do you believe in time and space?

In the next post I will show, how illogical your thinking is.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Neither. I suspect I understand nature.

" I understand nature " thereby implying the rest don't understand nature? What makes you so 'special' that you understand what the rest do not?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Can you prove time to me? also can you prove space to me what is space?

Let me ask you a question do you believe in time and space?

In the next post I will show, how illogical your thinking is.

I've done that already Muslim!

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

It's hard to talk with an ant, hence no reply.

are you saying here that you are superior to Duendy?
Comparing her to an 'ant' and you are what? meanwhile I thought you understood nature? You should therefore be able to communicate and have empathy with all?

 

[ellion]

If you read my passages above re babies and athiesm you will find that babies at birth are 'ignorant' AND not atheist!

i am not saying babies are athiest. do you see me saying babies are athiest?

".......Atheism is not having no belief at all; atheism is an active belief that there is no God. Babies are not atheists; they are just ignorant. They have no beliefs in anything whatsoever because they have not developed the capacity to think and reason. If Mr. Edelen’s article says much at all, it’s consequence is that a return to atheism is a return to ignorance, since that’s what babies really are. I don’t think he would want to accept that conclusion. But it’s only logical."

which is more like agosticism than athiesm, yes or no?
agnostic = having no knowledge of..

Dictionary.com [=-

ag·nos·tic Audio pronunciation of "agnostic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.


adj.

1. Relating to or being an agnostic.
2. Doubtful or noncommittal: “Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous ‘acquisitiveness’ for discovering patterns” (William H. Calvin).

as i said

i thought anti-theist is opposed to theism. like anti-establishment, anti-abortion, anti-dote, anti-war, anti-social.

being "anti-...." is being against a particfular group or person.

what you are talking about with babies is more like agnosticism.

ToR

i think you should relax a little, we are not all here to start a war.

 

[Avatar]

" I understand nature " thereby implying the rest don't understand nature? What makes you so 'special' that you understand what the rest do not?

There is no such implication, besides I have no idea about what "rest" you are speaking of.
I suspect, those who do understand fall in none of the categories mentioned above.

p.s. In your post you quoted me incorrectly and falsely, you left out one word.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

i am not saying babies are athiest. do you see me saying babies are athiest?

(me: Did I say you did say it? er No? so whay you asking? Lol)

which is more like agosticism than athiesm, yes or no?
agnostic = having no knowledge of..

(me: No, agnositic by the definitions you provided is still talkimng about belief, belief that we can not prove one way or the other the existance of God, so there still needs to be an understanding of the concepts, babies have no such understanding, they are ...'ignorant')

as i said

ToR

i think you should relax a little, we are not all here to start a war.

I am relaxed, why do you presume otherwise? What misinterprettation are you undertaking to presume my mood? I expect controversy and opposition, hence the thread a versus b? "Jaw Jaw not war war "ay? (Churchill)

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Avatar has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - ZERO Tolerance - religious V non religious - in the Religion forum of sciforums.com.

This thread is located at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53901&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
There is no such implication, besides I have no idea about what "rest" you are speaking of.
Those who do understand fall in none of the categories mentioned above.

p.s. In your post you quoted me incorrectly and falsely, you left out one word

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Avatar has just replied to a thread you have subscribed to entitled - ZERO Tolerance - religious V non religious - in the Religion forum of sciforums.com.

This thread is located at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=53901&goto=newpost

Here is the message that has just been posted:
***************
There is no such implication, besides I have no idea about what "rest" you are speaking of.
Those who do understand fall in none of the categories mentioned above.

p.s. In your post you quoted me incorrectly and falsely, you left out one word

Avatar, You said you are not: religious, athiest, agnostic, theist (non religious one), and that you understand nature, the 'rest' being those you stated you are 'neither of'. Hence, stating as you confirm again here, that no one in those catagories understands nature?

So u are special becuase you understand nature whereas those mentioned do not? What aspect of your understanding of nature is superior to mine?

 

[SkinWalker]

Babies are atheist at birth. They are without religion and without the belief of any gods.

My four-year old is a perfect atheist. She has no concept of a god nor does she care to have one. She doesn't "believe" there is no god any more than I believe there aren't igglelundermops on the planet orbiting a nearby star: she hasn't had the need to think about it.

We are all born as atheists until our parents (in most cases) abuse us with the mind virus of religion. Religious indoctrination amounts to nothing more than child-abuse. You can no more say a child is born Christian or Muslim than you can Republican or Democrat -they simply haven't the cognitive or critical thinking skills to understand what it means to be religious.

The reason its child abuse is because the human child is evolved to believe a parent without considerable question, particularly when at young age. "Don't walk near the cliff," "lions are dangerous," etc. This is an evolutionary advantage that we abuse by indoctrinating children with superstitions of the various faiths one is "born" into. The result is a world of hatred and violence.

 

[ellion]

(me: No, agnositic by the definitions you provided is still talkimng about belief, belief that we can not prove one way or the other the existance of God, so there still needs to be an understanding of the concepts, babies have no such understanding, they are ...'ignorant')

granted ignorant is a better term, than agnostic but, and this is the important bit form my position; geeser or Kenny or someone was talking about baby athiests and my suggestion was agnostic is a better term than athiesm for what was being said at the time.

I am relaxed, why do you presume otherwise? What misinterprettation are you undertaking to presume my mood? I expect controversy and opposition, hence the thread a versus b? "Jaw Jaw not war war "ay?

the speed of your grammar and the way you harangued me with little consideration of what i had actually said suggest a defensive atitude and i assume that you are in a slightly heightened perhaps somewhat over active state of awareness. if you are not being defensive and are in a heightend state why are you so quick to defend your already relaxed atitude.

you might as well have shouted I AM FUCKING RELAXED OKAY, TWAT. actually that might have been funnier and i may have thought you where relaxed and winding me up.

 

[Avatar]

TOR: You do it again. Now exploiting my 'post quick reply' trigger happy finger. I edited it in the second after posted as it can be seen by no "edited by" text below the message.
The thing that you are quoting the notification email and not the actual post shows that you are a...
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/nitpick.htm

You said you are not: religious, athiest, agnostic, theist (non religious one), and that you understand nature

I didn't say that and you know that, I said I suspect I do.

that no one in those catagories understands nature?

I said no such thing. They may and they may not. They do not, if I am correct, but I don't know, if I am.

So u are special becuase you understand nature whereas those mentioned do not?

Why special? You might ask, for example, Dalai Lama the same question. I'm in no way unique at all.

What aspect of your understanding of nature is superior to mine?

You have understanding? I congratulate!

 

[Avatar]

Babies are atheist at birth. They are without religion and without the belief of any gods.

Ahteism is a belief in no gods (that there are none), that is different than having no concept of gods.
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=atheism

I.e., atheism is a conscious choice to believe in no gods, but that requires having a concept of what god is in order to chose not to believe in it.

Lack of concept does not mean atheism, at least in the way that Webster tells.

 

[leopold]

We are all born as atheists until our parents (in most cases) abuse us with the mind virus of religion.

how do we know this?

there can be only one way to find out if religion in people is naturaly occuring or not

to the best of my knowledge that experiment has never been conducted

 

[geeser]

1) Prove there are/is no God/s

the burden of proof falls on your shoulders,
Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

2) Babies are NOT born atheist as atheism is an 'opinion', and babies have no such opinions.

atheism is'nt a label, atheism is individual, there is a commonality amongst atheist, but each has his own opinion, however atheism has a basic tenet. it's just a way of life, there are no clubs, no churches, atheism is what you are, before religion has taken hold, The word ATHEISM. is from the greek atheos a (without) and theos (god). just like babies.

""An Atheist loves himself and his fellow human instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that "heaven" is something for which we should work now -- here on earth -- for all people together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow human can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment.

thats his opinion, though it's a good tenet to follow, it 'sounds more like buddahism.

Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists."

this is where you er, the natural order of things, exist whether your atheist or religious.
however the atheist, just does'nt divert from the natural path, the path he was born with.

You are saying babies are born with all this innate philosophy?

no you are, I have done no such labeling.

i thought anti-theist is opposed to theism. like anti-establishment, anti-abortion, anti-dote, anti-war, anti-social.

being "anti-...." is being against a particfular group or person.

the prefix "Anti-"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anti-

Anti-christ
+
Anti-christian
=
dont much like that as it gives the church the power to accuse those who hold christianity to the light of scrutiny.

you are right about thr prefix anti, however in this case it means thus.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Antitheist
An`ti`the´ist
A disbeliever in the existence of God.

http://www.formosa-translation.com/chinese/a/aa89.html
antitheist
A disbeliever in the existence of God.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=antitheist
An`ti*the"ist,
A disbeliever in the existence of God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism
Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is a direct opposition to theism. The word has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to belief in any deity, while in theistic ones, it sometimes refers to opposition to the actual entity God.

it has nothing to do with religion.

 

[Avatar]

The concept of god is an archetype of the human psyche, it has occured in every culture and society that we have knowledge of and it has to do with human perception of the world, i.e., how our brain works.
You can read on a topic related to this subject here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

A bit of it:

Typically, people use magic to attempt to explain things that science has not yet explained, or to attempt to control things that science cannot. The classic example is of the collapsing roof, described in E. E. Evans-Pritchard's Witchcraft, Magic, and Oracles Among the Azande, in which the Azande claimed that a roof fell on a particular person because of a magical spell cast by another person. The Azande did understand a scientific explanation for the collapsing room (that termites had eaten through the supporting posts), but pointed out that this scientific explanation could not explain why the roof happened to collapse at precisely the same moment that the particular man was resting beneath it. Thus, from the point of view of the practitioners, magic explains what scientists would call "coincidences" or "contingency". From the point of view of outside observers, magic is a way of making coincidences meaningful in social terms. Carl Jung coined the word synchronicity for experiences of this type.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

.



the speed of your grammar and the way you harangued me with little consideration of what i had actually said suggest a defensive atitude and i assume that you are in a slightly heightened perhaps somewhat over active state of awareness. if you are not being defensive and are in a heightend state why are you so quick to defend your already relaxed atitude.

(I think quick, no denying that )
My typing style is poo, dyslexic fingers.

you might as well have shouted I AM FUCKING RELAXED OKAY, TWAT. actually that might have been funnier and i may have thought you where relaxed and winding me up.

lol you deffinately need to work on interpretting cyber moods! I have no problem with your incorrect assumption, just wondered how u arrived at it?

 

[ellion]

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

how can you say something like

no I have the label atheist, because there are no such thing as gods, devils, fairys, unicorns, and pink polka dotted elephants wearing roller skates, etc, etc, etc.

 

[SkinWalker]

Make up any definition you want, but a-theism means without- belief in a deity. Theism is the belief in a deity. Adding "a" means without or not.

For leo: that experiment need not be conducted (nor could it, ethically, since it would require control groups that are indoctrinated; others that aren't; etc). But if you ask my daughter what a god is, she will not have an answer for you. She is without a deity. An atheist from birth. And it'll stay that way unless she decides to change it at some point in the future.

Babies are atheist until someone indoctrinates them in some belief system that includes one or more deities. QED.