There's a hell of a difference between hating something and being "open-minded" about it.
And you might not want to make to many comments about what "atheists" are doing, what with atheists having absolutely no central authority.
__________________ "Men curse the Communist Party, but eventually it may release them. If hell were endless, then God would be worse than our Secret Police."--Pastor Valentin
Last edited by Gregory on Oct 4th, 2006 at 12:37 AM
And this is where you are wrong and if you'd read my post on my stance (which is very similar to the general stance of weak athiesm) you would see this.
Not having a belief in something does NOT mean you completely reject all possibility of it existing. As I said, I have no belief in any sort of higher being, but I aknowledge that one possibly could exist. I just don't believe it myself unless I get evidence to prove its existence.
The average person couldn't care less about the POA, atheist or not. Hell, the average person can't even recite it from memory.
And for that matter, that's no different from the people who want public prayer time and creationism in public schools.
You seem to know very little about religion, atheism, and, well, a lot of things
It's been my experience that most atheists don't believe in God (specifically, the biblical, "all-loving" kind) for one of two reasons...
1. There is no proof (ie, empirical proof).
2. There's too much suffering in the world or in one's personal life.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
atheism is the denial or disbelief in the existence of god, not having belief in god is not the same as atheism. Atheism as you describe would be existent at birth, iff God doesn't exist, I believe infants are born with the belief, and experience with examples of disbelief are the reason for the occurrence of disbelief. Given this, I could say that all infants are born theists.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
The belief that infants are atheist is presupposing atheism being correct. Infants and those without a knowledge of the concept of God cannot accept, believe, deny or disbelieve in God. Not having a belief in God is not the same as not having the concept of God. The concept must be present to have a stance either way.
I think infants are the most prone to be the ultimate anti-all things atheisim. Just by existing they are experiencing, submitting, acepting the natural laws governing life.
But generally up until an autonomous age a child is considered of there parents religion regardless of there mental ability.
I say there is something for what Lana is saying - atheism is the complete lack of belief in a deity.
As for me - I am borderline agnostic/atheist. Cop out? Perhaps. I can't say 100% there is no God, so there is a tiny bit of room. However I believe in things in place of God - science, humanity. I don't believe there is a God, at all - though there is the incredibly unlikely chance there is one.
As such I would consider myself atheistic as I don't believe in a God, I don't think one exists, I think there is proof in science that makes the things in the Koran or Bible or whatever highly unlikely - to the point where I see no reason to entertain the idea of a God/gods.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
I'm not being literal... A newborn child has no concept of god, or religion, so I call a spade, a spade. You grow up isolated without the precense of religion(as many cultures have) and you will not know religion. Luckily we have the option to choose.
I choose atheism because religion suppresses free will, and curiosity IMO (Galileo, Socrates, Darwin, etc.). I get your argument... If you have a box you can't open, and A. says it's filled with feathers, and B. say's it's filled with leaves, then one is just as rational as the other, so why not be an Agnostic? IMO, religion pales in comparrison to science. The basic fundamentals of science have made monumental gains in regards to where we come from in the past 500 years. Poseidon dosen't cause earthquakes, we are not the center of the Universe, there was no great flood, fossil records, we share genes with chimps, mice, E. coli, etc... Plus, we're 1 Galaxy amongst billions, that makes religion very trivial in my eyes.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
I don't believe that science and religion are diametrically opposed. Science is in line with any rational religion. Science does not conflict with the concept of God. The concept of God does not conflict with science.
Well then I guess it is theoretically possible that animals believe in God as well.
It comes, in this case, back to understanding. A person without the concept of God neither believes or disbelieves since that requires knowledge. They are, essentially, neutral. Lack of concept does not as a default put them in either of the categories - belief/disbelief.
A child before the age where they know of such thing does not believe, but at the same time they don't really disbelieve. As such they are neutral. When they reach an age where they grasp the concept they will fall into the categories - do they believe there is a God/gods (Theists) or not (Atheist.)
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
KMC Community Forums
Oct 4th, 2006 12:31 AM
