A lot has appeared here in last few minutes, I need to eat my ice-cream before it melts, don't go way 'I will be back!' (as Arnie said!!)
ZERO Tolerance - religious V non religious
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
The problem with getting the definition this way is that every dictionary will have a different version. The definition is best arrived at looking at the Greek etymology as Geeser pointed out.Avatar said:
But, if we were to hypothetically consider the M-W definition as being a non-colloquial one and one derived from the true meaning of the Greek origin of the word (which it doesn't appear to be), what then would we call a toddler that has no knowledge of religion. Agnostic doesn't work, since this implies that the knowledge is not only unknown, but unattainable.
The best term to describe someone without a deity belief is to say they are atheist.
It would seem that I've ignored my QED, so let me reassert it here.
QED.
leopold99 said:
There *is* evidence that religion is biological, there just isn't any that indicates that the religiosity of humans is regarding a genuine god. Indeed, the sheer number of religions in the world, past and present, -most with very contradicting doctrines- indicates all cannot be true. That leaves only a few possibilities: only a few are true (those that are similar); one is true; none are true. The other hundreds or thousands of religions must not be true and, since every culture has religion, there must be something physiological that provides the sense of religiosity to humanity.
Unfortunately, since most of the world is afflicted with this apparent "mind virus," there are few qualified to actually observe the phenomenon. I, of course, would argue that the non-religious are the only qualified observers since they aren't biased by their cults. Members of specific religious cults like Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, etc would obviously argue that the non-religious are biased against the religious. To some extent this may be true, but it would be better to scientifically study religion from the vantage point that they are all equally valid, and only a non-religious researcher could do this since, to him, all are just beliefs and thus equally valid.
Well I told where it was, but now I am home from work I have time to find it for you. I should really put it in my favourites because I get it out everytime an idiot on here say's religion is needed to improve society.
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
Well it's up to the reader to make up his own mind, but the only conclusions that you can make from it are that the higher the levels of atheism, the better for society OR at the very least, religion simply isn't required or does not help society.
"High levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality. Most nations characterized by high degrees of individual and societal security have the highest rates of organic atheism, and conversely, nations characterized by low degrees of individual and societal security have the lowest rates of organic atheism. In some societies, particularly Europe, atheism is growing. However, throughout much of the world – particularly nations with high birth rates – atheism is barely discernable."
If no word suits the situation, then perhaps a new word/term is in order.
Such a person should be called "a person with no concept of a divine being" or the same in some shorter word. Having no concept of something doesn't mean the same as disbelieving that something.
There is a difference between these two, such a difference that no one term should be applied for both.
You may agree or disagree, but I am pretty firm on this.
SkinWalker said:
SkinWalker said:
Last edited:
There's no need for another word. "Atheist" works just find. Without diety. I don't "believe" there is no god, I simply refuse to believe in one. Should evidence of a god present itself, I may change my position. Until then, I'm atheist -without a god. You can be as firm as you want to be, but you are still wrong.
That's just your subjective opinion, nothing more, just as mine. I'll still sleep at night.
But that child hasn't refused. (S)he has no idea what to refuse.
I'm surprised you don't see the difference, maybe because you base it on your daughter which you want to be atheist, just like you are. Nothing unnatural with that, parents tend to do that.
geeser said:
It was not me who said there was no God, it was you.
You cannot prove it becuase as you say you cannot know, better to be agnostic than adopt an 'opinon' (hich is what atheism is ) of assuming to 'know it all' (we can continue to disagree on that point) which is what atheists do.
meanwhile the thread point is not that babies ARE NOT born atheists, but about how 'special ' each group presumes they are compared to the rest.
Avatar said:That's just your subjective opinion, nothing more, just as mine. I'll still sleep at night.
But that child hasn't refused. (S)he has no idea what to refuse.
I'm surprised you don't see the difference, maybe because you base it on your daughter which you want to be atheist. Nothing wrong with that.
agreed
Babies are born atheists. They are without-god. No god. No knowledge of a god. Call it ignorant if you want (it is, I agree) but they are atheist.
The problem is, there are those that are trying to separate out the pejorative version of "atheist" that exists in the minds of the superstitious (the theists) from the reality that there are simply those that don't know of the anthropomorphic deity they refer to as the one "true" god. Obviously the infants cannot be blamed, so "lets not call them 'atheist' since this is the term we reserve for those that have 'heard' the word and refuse it." Bollocks.
The problem is, there are those that are trying to separate out the pejorative version of "atheist" that exists in the minds of the superstitious (the theists) from the reality that there are simply those that don't know of the anthropomorphic deity they refer to as the one "true" god. Obviously the infants cannot be blamed, so "lets not call them 'atheist' since this is the term we reserve for those that have 'heard' the word and refuse it." Bollocks.
so what we have here is: the to quote you "idiot who believes religion is needed to improve society", and an idiot who believes atheism is needed to improve society.KennyJC said:
Interesting
Were there no wars, battles, crimes before religion came into being?
What were all these atheists doing..that neccessitated religion and encouraged it to rise to these epic proprotions in the first place?
I shall look at that link but as I said there really is NO evidence that better lifestyle stems from atheism, not unless they inerviewed every single individual and asked them what their personal phiolosophy was and where there morals came from..and that what they said was the truth and that were not sunbconciously influenced by the colour of their hair afterall!
I'm a religious atheist.
spidergoat said:
so you have religion but do not believe in god or you have made your disbelief in God your religion? Or you are taking the piss?