Shadownought

Since when is a sense of God innate? I never had any sense of any gods existing. No one "perverted" my perceptions one way or another- my parents, for example, never went to church, never forced ME to go to church, and never said anything, positive OR negative, about any gods. I was left to my own devices, and so, never finding any reason to believe in some magic man in the sky, I remained an atheist.

Children do not automatically "know" that Mr. Yahweh exists. This is merely the injection of theology from an early age, masquerading as an "innate sense." My failure to believe in him is not due to any brainwashing or perversion. Your suggestion is ridiculous.

MonkeeSage

That's what all brainwashed people say. You have a very good reason for not wanting to know God, after all--because you are under His displeasure as a rebel sinner--so I understand your felt need to deny God.


Shelumi`El
Jordan

S.D.G

Shadownought

And I knew that was exactly how you would respond to what I said.

Quote:

You have a very good reason for not wanting to know God, after all--because you are under His displeasure as a rebel sinner--so I understand your felt need to deny God.

I sense that I am feeding a troll.

MonkeeSage

I'm a troll because you use weak arguments that can be easily reversed? Interesting concept.


Shelumi`El
Jordan

S.D.G

Philosoft

I have a feeling I know where this is going, but would you care to elucidate anyway?
So what does this mean? Are all worldviews partially correct? Completely incorrect? Or is there One True Worldview™? How to we tell?

Pot, kettle yadayada. Why don't you try to understand why your speculation about atheism is inaccurate before you take us to task for ours?
Well then, this message board should be perfect for you.

What is your criticism here? I'm sure Bertrand Russell said some stupid things at one time or another. Does that invalidate atheism entirely?

Hello? You want correction? Show us a God. Does it get any easier than that? I'll denounce every philosophical objection extant. I promise.

Worst crime possible?? Have fun running your imaginary theocracy.

Innate sense of God?? Don't insult our intelligence. Do you have any idea what the correlation is between parents' and childrens' religious beliefs?
Unlike, say, quantum chromodynamics, knowledge of which we are surely born with. :banghead:

Quote:

the criticisms and reversals are not aimed at your personal character, but your position, and no disrespect towards you is intended.

I suggest you reconsider your "worst crime" before assuming what we will or will not take as disrespectful.

Shadownought

No, because the following:

is a very typical trollish statement, especially on a secular message board.

If you aren't being a troll, then prove it. If you think that by NOT having religion forced on me, I am being brainwashed, then back it up. Tell us who is doing the brainwashing, and how. Tell us why the LACK of indoctrination into any religious institution- the key word being LACK, a passive course of action- can possibly be construed as brainwashing. Back up your assertion that all children have an innate sense of god, despite the fact that I'm right here telling you that as a child, I did not.

MonkeeSage

Philosoft:

All those statements were simply the reversals of the points originally posted by TerryTryon.

--------

Shadownought:

Then you are a troll for claiming that "Children do not automatically "know" that Mr. Yahweh exists. This is merely the injection of theology from an early age, masquerading as an "innate sense." My failure to believe in him is not due to any brainwashing or perversion. Your suggestion is ridiculous."

And TerryTyron is a troll for claiming that "The worst crime possible is to take advantage of a child’s natural credulity, and that is the chief means by which god-belief perpetuates itself."


I'm reversing your argument anf TerryTryon's, so if my reversals lack support, you can think of that like a mirror to what has been presented from the atheist side.


Shelumi`El
Jordan

S.D.G

Philosoft

MonkeeSage/S.D.G.,

I am unclear what you are trying to accomplish. If you think mere reversal is a valid form of argumentation, this is going to get irritating very quickly. A evidentially or philosophically supported statement does not automatically become a supported statement when reversed.

Shadownought

It's like I'm back in the second grade.

"I know you are, but what am I?"
"I know you are, but what am I?"
"I know you are, but what am I?"

MonkeeSage

No supported statements were made, which is why I used the tactic of reversal. My purpose was to challange the tacit assumptions that cause the original list to only be valid if one already starts from the Atheistic position--not as external support for it, just as my reversals are only valid if one starts from within a Theistic perspective.


Shelumi`El
Jordan

Soli Deo Gloria