ZERO Tolerance - religious V non religious

What are you


  • Total voters
    38
SkinWalker said:
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.

agreed, what you said is bollocks :) atheism as defined is disbelief in existance of God, babies are therefore ignorant not atheist.

meanhwhile Kenny keeps telling us what makes atheists special, what makes you special, especially as for you, you are merely not disbelieving but not knowing.
 
However, consider the incidence of deity-worship and spirituality in human culture: multiple independent foundings, over wide geographic and temporal distances. In short: all emergent humans societies have religion of some kind.

This suggests to me a common cause, although it need not be necessarily external. Are humans somehow prone to superstition? Where does it arise?

Geoff
 
I believe I answered that question, at least partially, please see the 4th page, post @ Today, 06:49 PM GMT+2.
 
Avatar said:
I believe I answered that question, at least partially, please see the previous page.

indeed you did, magical somethings...


Avatar said:
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:


Now back to why you all think you are special please!!!!!
 
You define atheism as "disbelief" in the existance of "God." But the actual definition, looking at the etymology of the word is without belief in a god. Indeed, you are so ethnocentric as to exclude the gods of other cults and limit the "disbelief to your own!

It is the result which the term "atheist" describes, not the cause. Spin it any way you want, but a lack of belief is what it is. Whether born without it or chose to reject the belief on the basis of logic and a lack of evidence. The result is a lack of belief. That is what it is to be atheist.

"Antitheist" on the other hand, I'm that as well.
 
And no babies minds are far from being blank at birth, they can hear sounds outside of the womb and can indeed demonstrate recognition of them after birth.

This has been rehashed before, I'm not going to repeat myself. Look at it here: http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-41392

A baby that's dumped in a dumpster has no chance of survival, why?, because it's brain does not have the capacity to think, and survive on it's own, thus TABULA RAZA!.

Godless
 
We as species all are born premature compared to other apes (and that has been our big advantage), but that doesn't mean that helpless == thinkless.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
it's 'bullucks' is it ;)

copied from web, link to follow:

""They invented mathematics and science." Surely, Bertrand Russell could not have expected to be taken seriously. The Egyptian invented mathematics, which he decided to denigrated as, 'form of rule of thumbs.' Pythagoras, whom the White people like to credit with the mathematical theorem that bore his name was a student in Egypt. So much for the so-called 'Father of mathematics!' This fact alone, which could not have escaped Bertrand Russell, demolished the argument that the Greek invented mathematics. Aristotle, Plato borrowed their ideas from the Egyptian - although without giving any credit. Not less a personage than Herodotus affirmed that Greece borrowed from Egypt all the elements of her civilization, even the cults of her gods. We have to ask Bertrand Russell how a people could could something as imposing as the pyramids with a working knowledge of trigonometry! The Papyrus of Moscow and the Rhind Papyrus greatly enrich our knowledge of these facts.

When it is not sufficient to ascribed any notion of ingenuity on the ancient Greeks, Western scholars fall back on an old-trick, looking for a mythical White origin of the Egyptian civilization - the most impressive of all ancient civilizations.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/30/009.html

Firstly I may have misunderstood your claim I notced you said invented maths while I first read it to mean you were claiming invented math(as in the entire concept). So perhaps you could set me straight on that.
However above I am getting the impression that you are claiming the ancient egyptians were arabs, is that correct?
 
SkinWalker said:
You define atheism as "disbelief" in the existance of "God." But the actual definition, looking at the etymology of the word is without belief in a god. Indeed, you are so ethnocentric as to exclude the gods of other cults and limit the "disbelief to your own!

It is the result which the term "atheist" describes, not the cause. Spin it any way you want, but a lack of belief is what it is. Whether born without it or chose to reject the belief on the basis of logic and a lack of evidence. The result is a lack of belief. That is what it is to be atheist.

"Antitheist" on the other hand, I'm that as well.

*************
M*W: I agree with your definition of "antitheist." "Atheist" means "lack of belief." "Antitheist" means "against theism." That's what I am.
 
Avatar said:
Why do you think they think that they are special?

I don't think anyone is more sepcial than anyone else. I have merely observed that some most deffinately do believe they are more special...look at Kenny, "it is fact athiests are better"......
 
Godless said:
This has been rehashed before, I'm not going to repeat myself. Look at it here: http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-41392

A baby that's dumped in a dumpster has no chance of survival, why?, because it's brain does not have the capacity to think, and survive on it's own, thus TABULA RAZA!.

Godless

what has this got to do with anything? A baby can hardly survive on its own, that is not the argument. doesn't mean the babies not learning and thinking and processing stimulus and new information while stuck in the dumpster? keep it relevantish at least?
 
ellion said:
how can you say something like
I cant prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are no pink polka dotted elephants wearing roller skates, somewhere in the universe, but I'd be pretty damn foolish to actually believe there are, therefore I can say by good reasoning that there are no such thing.

Theoryofrelativity said:
It was not me who said there was no God, it was you.
read it properly, it does not matter whether I said theres no god, I dont assert that one exists. the relevent part is colored red, see below.
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. this is the answer I gave to you asking me to ( 1) Prove there are/is no God/s)so therefore the onus is on whom ever asserts that god/s exists, I dont.
 
Last edited:
geeser said:
I cant proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are no pink polka dotted elephants wearing roller skates, somewhere in the universe, but I'd be pretty damn foolish to actually believe there are, therefore I can say by good reasoning that there are no such thing.

read it properly, it does not matter whether I said theres no god, I dont assert that one exists. the relevent part is colored red, see below.
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. this is the answer I gave to you asking me to ( 1) Prove there are/is no God/s)so therefore the onus is on whom ever asserts that god/s exists, I dont.

You know an unborn child does not know the world exists until it is born.
It has no concept of the world even. By your logic the fact the baby knows the world does not exists but cannot prove it therefore means the world does not exist? What logic is that??

If I believe in God I have to prove it do I..why? I never said 'there is a god'..the end, whereas you said...(paraphrasing) there is 'no god'.

So why does a comment you made mean that I have to present proof?
 
Womb is a part of the world just as his or her mother is.
After being born baby knows just what to do - reach for the mother's breast, it knows where the mother's breast is, it know what to do with it, and it demands her attention upon any need.
Young turtles after being born know just what a hawk's shadow on the sand looks like and they react appropriate to it, and not any shadow, it has to be in the shape of a predatory bird. Scientists have done experiments with cardboard shapes. Even if all the predatory birds die out and after generations in a zoo turtles will still hide if see such a shadow.

Instincts, nervous wiring, call it what you wish, but there is information there.
How does it get there? You tell me.
 
Avatar said:
Womb is a part of the world just as his or her mother is.
After being born baby knows just what to do - reach for the mother's breast, it knows where the mother's breast is, it know what to do with it, and it demands her attention upon any need.
Young turtles after being born know just what a hawk's shadow on the sand looks like and they react appropriate to it, and not any shadow, it has to be in the shape of a predatory bird. Scientists have done experiments with cardboard shapes. Even if all the predatory birds die out and after generations in a zoo turtles will still hide if see such a shadow.

Instincts, nervous wiring, call it what you wish, but there is information there.
How does it get there? You tell me.

It is innate knowledge, human babies have very little compared to other sepcies, our brains have a larger capacity for learning, whereas other species brains less so. Innate knowledge is a fascinating thing. I guess its coded in the genes?

unrelated to thread question but very ineresting link about how learned knowledge is heritable! (In animals at least??)
http://www.grandin.com/references/genetics.html

from above link:
"The Science of Behavior Today
Two years after the Brelands article, Jerry Hirsh (1963) at the University of Illinois wrote a paper emphasizing the importance of studying individual differences. He wrote, "Individual differences are no accident. They are generated by properties of organisms as fundamental to behavior science as thermodynamic properties are to physical science." Today, scientists recognize the contributions of both the Skinnerian and the ethologists approach to understanding behavior Modern neuroscience supports Darwin's view on behavior. Bird and mammal brains are constructed with the same basic design. They all have a brain stem, limbic system, cerebellum, and cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex is the part of the brain used for thinking and flexible problem solving. The major difference between the brains of people and animals is in the size and complexity of the cortex. Primates have a larger and more complex cortex than a dog or a pig; pigs have a more complex cortex than a rat or a mouse. Furthermore, all animals possess innate species-specific motor patterns which interact with experience and learning in the formation of behavior. Certain behaviors in both wild and domestic animals are governed largely by innate (hard-wired) programs; however, experiencing and learning are the most important factors in other behaviors.
A basic principle to remember is that animals with large, complex brains are less governed by innate behavior patterns. For example, bird behavior is governed more by instinct than that of a dog, whereas an insect would have more hard-wired behavior patterns than that of a bird. This principle was clear to Yerkes (1905) who wrote:

Certain animals are markedly plastic or voluntary in their behavior, others are as markedly fixed or instinctive. In the primates plasticity has reached its highest known stage of development; in the insects fixity has triumphed, instinctive action is predominant. The ant has apparently sacrificed adapt-ability to the development of ability to react quickly, accurately and uniformly in a certain way Roughly, animals might he separated into two classes: those which are in high degree capable of immediate adaptation to their conditions, and those that are apparently automatic since they depend upon instinct tendencies to action instead of upon rapid adaptation."


and on the subject of demestication and 'heritable' knowledge

"In any event, wolves kept for companions had to be easy to handle and socialize to humans. Within a few generations, early humans may have turned wolves into dogs by selecting and breeding the tamest ones. Thousands of years ago, humans were not aware that behavior in animals was heritable. However, even today people who raise dogs, horses, pigs, cattle, or chickens notice differences in the behavior of the offspring. Some animals are friendly and readily approach people, while others may be shy and nervous."
 
Last edited:
speaking of animals- relating to the basically good or evil question-

On one level a theologian can insist on a "basically evil" standpoint, but there is another level, the human level, on which a person can in fact be basically good, and nobody is ever really asked to be anything other than human by their own power - so in essence they never are, and there is no qualitative difference between the "believer" and "unbeliever".
A dog can be a good dog or a bad dog, but none of the dogs are going to go use the toilet instead of pooping on the ground. (you know what I mean, although I'm sure dogs have done it.)

The point is - if someone cleans up after you, or trains you, that doesn't make you a "better" dog.

I copied this from another thread I was typing in but it basically shows why a theist can't have false superiority.

Regarding the athiest - I love it when someone tries to say that atheists are smarter or more rational - some atheists are very stupid and irrational, and I am a theist who is smarter and more rational than most atheists, guaranteed. There is no rule. QED.
 
cole grey said:
speaking of animals- relating to the basically good or evil question-

On one level a theologian can insist on a "basically evil" standpoint, but there is another level, the human level, on which a person can in fact be basically good, and nobody is ever really asked to be anything other than human by their own power - so in essence they never are, and there is no qualitative difference between the "believer" and "unbeliever".
A dog can be a good dog or a bad dog, but none of the dogs are going to go use the toilet instead of pooping on the ground. (you know what I mean, although I'm sure dogs have done it.)

The point is - if someone cleans up after you, or trains you, that doesn't make you a "better" dog.

I copied this from another thread I was typing in but it basically shows why a theist can't have false superiority.

Regarding the athiest - I love it when someone tries to say that atheists are smarter or more rational - some atheists are very stupid and irrational, and I am a theist who is smarter and more rational than most atheists, guaranteed. There is no rule. QED.

lol, deary me, ok, so what we have is here a good dog does not a good atheist make? you may have to explain that a bit more ;)

meanwhile you are telling me that you as a theist are "smarter and more rational than most atheists" Do you know most atheists? lol

you are special coley, but I feel it is not your theism that makes it so.......
 
I don't think anyone is more sepcial than anyone else. I have merely observed that some most deffinately do believe they are more special...look at Kenny, "it is fact athiests are better"......

Listen, if you keep misquoting me, it just makes you look stupid. I said society, not atheism itself. The statistics don't say that society improves where there is most religion does it? Whatever assumption you come to, you can not get away from the fact that my point still stands - Good societies tend to have high levels of atheism... That is the fact. Just why that is... is theory.
 
Back
Top