Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Inconnu · 07-22-2003, 06:29 AM

That brings up some interesting perspectives on the christian nativity.

Vylo · 07-22-2003, 06:48 AM

When defining atheism, I usually divide it into 2 basic groups:

Negative atheist - does not even consider the exist of a god or deity. It would be considered almost a silly concept. If I told you there was a fire breathing pink unicorn outside your home, would you even look?

I may be incorrect, but I believe that most atheists here are negative atheists.

Positive atheist - Denies the exists of a god or deity. Will try to show how they do not exist.

I myself am a positive atheist.

A new born baby I would consider to be a nontheist. They have not been exposed to any concept of a god or deity, so they cannot deny it or brush it off as a silly concept. Also they do not by defualt accept any theology. Therefore they are neither atheist nor theist, theism doesn't apply to them this early in their development and level of exposure to theological ideas.

SignOfTheCross · 07-22-2003, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Inconnu
Is a baby born atheist?

No, a baby is not able to believe there is no God at such an early age, as a baby cannot even understand the concept of God.

Peace,
SOTC

SignOfTheCross · 07-22-2003, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Then I hope you now see your error!

Our distaste for the word "denial" is twofold:

1. We wish to clarify that atheism does not require proof that no gods exist: we "deny" because of the lack of positive evidence for the existence of gods, NOT because we claim to have proof of their nonexistence. This is a VERY common misunderstanding, as we have seen.

2. We wish to address the wilful misunderstanding (actually, that's too gentle: "dissemination of lying propaganda" is more accurate) by certain Christians who are idiotic enough to believe that "atheists know that God exists, but are in rebellion against him" purely because the Bible says so. Even if we tell these morons that we do NOT know that God exists, they accuse US of lying about that.

I just wanted clarification. In all reality, atheism is a denial of God or gods, but atheists are not in "denial" of God or gods. I would define "denial" as a rejection of belief in God, but not in a negative sense of the word.

Peace,
SOTC

SignOfTheCross · 07-22-2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I think it's rather interesting how some Christians react to the very existence of unbelievers.

Kneejerk reaction: fear, guilt, punishment. "You disobeyed, you are guilty, you will be punished, THE BOGEYMAN WILL GET YOU!!!".

No sign of that "God is love" propaganda. It gets straight to the point. God is the bully, the abusive parent, the ultimate Monster Under The Bed.

Everytime we talk about the love of God atheists just want to point out the "so called" atrocities in the Bible, so why bother?

Peace,
SOTC

Autonemesis · 07-22-2003, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
No, a baby is not able to believe there is no God at such an early age, as a baby cannot even understand the concept of God.

That's atheism: no concept of God. It doesn't mean "incorrect concept of God" or "alternate concept of God" it means "no concept of God." Infants are atheist.

By the way, I can't understand any concept of God offered to me, either. I am like an infant that way, I guess. All I have ever heard are nonsensical formulations that are internally inconsistent, and/or at variance with reality.

Autonemesis · 07-22-2003, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
Everytime we talk about the love of God atheists just want to point out the "so called" atrocities in the Bible, so why bother?

Peace,
SOTC

Indeed. Stop proselytizing, and we'll have no cause to mention God's Most Embarrasing Moments.

Mageth · 07-22-2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
The word "you" was meant to be addressed in a broader sense, not "you" personally.

When you (and I mean you) used "you" in a direct response to my post, it was directed at me personally.

Should the Christian God exist, you would be to blame for your condemnation (should you be condemned). Who else is there to blame?

Peace,
SOTC

The one who set up the system in which people can be condemned for not believing in him, and then hid himself so well that many like me don't believe he exists? I didn't invent the game and write the rules. I didn't volunteer to play. I consider myself innocent, and any condemning of me to be done will be by the cosmic referee, not me.

Oh, and you. You're the one doing the condemning here, not me.

Your argument is essentially a rehash of the easily-refuted Pascal's Wager, and I'll repeat one of the easy refutations of it:

And, once again, should the Islamic Allah exist, you would be to blame for your condemnation (should you be condemned). Who else is there to blame? You'd better start bowing towards Mecca five times a day.

And once again, it's ironic that you keep wishing me "peace" in the same posts where you essentially condemn me.

SignOfTheCross · 07-22-2003, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG
You are even asking ? The omnipotent and omniscient being - if it exists - which knows perfectly well that the alleged evidence for its existence does not induce me to believe it, and, despite his alleged desire that all come to know him, refuses to present such sufficient evidence.

86% of the entire world can profess belief in a deity without objective proof, so why is it so difficult for you? We worship God by faith, evidence nullifies faith, therefore faith is without evidence. Besides, an ordered universe could be evidence for intelligent design, of course, you would reject this, but it is an arguement none the less.

Quote:

Of course, an omnipotent being has no problems providing this sufficient evidence.

I think He's provided us with all the evidence we need, or at least 86% of the world believe that.

Quote:

Would you feel blameworthy if it turned out after all that Odin exists and asks you why you haven't trained for Ragnar�k ?

I'd say "who is Odin?"

Peace,
SOTC

Regards,
HRG.

Autonemesis · 07-22-2003, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
The brain does not like doubting, so usually, such attitudes arise after one has lost confidence in his/her position, and wishes to regain it back.

Speak for your own brain, mine likes doubting just fine. It's muddled thinking that comes from magical viewpoints like yours that it doesn't like.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-22-2003, 06:29 AM	#41
Inconnu Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: here Posts: 121	That brings up some interesting perspectives on the christian nativity.

07-22-2003, 06:48 AM	#42
Vylo Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: washington, NJ 07882 Posts: 253	When defining atheism, I usually divide it into 2 basic groups: Negative atheist - does not even consider the exist of a god or deity. It would be considered almost a silly concept. If I told you there was a fire breathing pink unicorn outside your home, would you even look? I may be incorrect, but I believe that most atheists here are negative atheists. Positive atheist - Denies the exists of a god or deity. Will try to show how they do not exist. I myself am a positive atheist. A new born baby I would consider to be a nontheist. They have not been exposed to any concept of a god or deity, so they cannot deny it or brush it off as a silly concept. Also they do not by defualt accept any theology. Therefore they are neither atheist nor theist, theism doesn't apply to them this early in their development and level of exposure to theological ideas.

07-22-2003, 08:32 AM	#48
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by SignOfTheCross The word "you" was meant to be addressed in a broader sense, not "you" personally. When you (and I mean you) used "you" in a direct response to my post, it was directed at me personally. Should the Christian God exist, you would be to blame for your condemnation (should you be condemned). Who else is there to blame? Peace, SOTC The one who set up the system in which people can be condemned for not believing in him, and then hid himself so well that many like me don't believe he exists? I didn't invent the game and write the rules. I didn't volunteer to play. I consider myself innocent, and any condemning of me to be done will be by the cosmic referee, not me. Oh, and you. You're the one doing the condemning here, not me. Your argument is essentially a rehash of the easily-refuted Pascal's Wager, and I'll repeat one of the easy refutations of it: And, once again, should the Islamic Allah exist, you would be to blame for your condemnation (should you be condemned). Who else is there to blame? You'd better start bowing towards Mecca five times a day. And once again, it's ironic that you keep wishing me "peace" in the same posts where you essentially condemn me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.