Well, youre the ones who added it in as a sign that America was a great Christian nation against "athiest" communists.
Estute.
No one in their right mind would believe in a god.
You stuck in a mental rut. You start CLEAN. Tabula Rasa. The only reason you believe in god is because someone else told you. No infant is born praying. That concept is simply absurd.
Not to those who sit down and think of it for a second.
And who said a god put them there? Things have natural properties.
Correct. But science has undoubtedly changed the nature of god, forced him back. More proof against god.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
I have had experiences that do not fit with doubt as to the existence of God. I do not claim that they are evidence, as I have no tangible support for the personal experience and they are not replicable.
In your opinion, which is biased by your stance as atheist.
I did not state they were born praying. I believe that infants are born with a glimmer of understanding as to the existence of God. Such is entirely possible, especially given that human memory is horrible. Stating that an infant is born atheist is a similar stance, and both are unprovable as it will be impossible to raise an infant in a theist/atheist neutral environment. Your claim as to the reason I believe in God is hasty and without knowledge of my history. I can tell you that I have experienced religious variety in my history, and have not always believed as I do currently. I have experienced atheism, satanism, mainstream Christianity, extreme cult, Masonry, Celtic Wicca, and a few others, many firsthand, a few secondhand. I believe as I do due to experience with the people created by varied belief systems as well as the belief systems themselves. My beliefs have also been shaped by my personal experiences within religions, and the varied experiences within each. I believe as I do because to believe otherwise, given the evidence as to where people have the highest tendency of proper behavior and happiness, would be illogical. The idea that atheism is correct, when in my experience a higher level of happiness and contentment exist in a theist paradigm, is absurd.
Science has not changed the nature of God, it has changed the traditions and philosophies of men about the nature of God. God has always been the same, it is man that has grown and has found his own opinions and superstitions about the nature of God to be in error. More proof as to the faulty nature of Man's philosophies when not grounded in true science. God is existent, man merely has developed elaborate philosophies about him and his existance which have evolved into a belief that God stated he existed as man has stated he does. Science is merely another means of clarifying the errors of man's religious philosophies. Science does not force God back, man himself does this.
Although an atheist could respond that it is the other way around - it often seems to be an unwinnable argument about which side is more biased or not (and I can't say, but then again some people least willing to listen have been religious in my experience.)
That was what I was getting at. Personally since I think religion is man made one learns it from others rather then feels it in oneself. Still a child is born without the necessary knowledge or cognitive ability to believe either way. They are neutral - neither atheist or theist.
With is subjective. I dare say from my experiences an atheist is capable of being equally happy and content as a theist. This is that neither other greater happiness - since I operate upon the human side. I don't think there is a God, thus it is human happiness in religion, and human happiness in Atheist. Neither other a greater sense of well being, both world views can lend themselves to goodness.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
Then is it evidence or just you attempting to rationalize your position?
No more biased then yours. I also have the ability to argue without some of the restraint of bias. If I'm debating something, I try to set aside my lenses. If I'm stating an opinion, of course its going to be biased.
Again, you're think of this the wrong way. Agnosticism is NOT the middle perspective. I'd argue that an infant would not spontaneously create a god, certainly not one with all the hoopla attached to it (as in indocrinated religion). The concept of God is an absurd concept, it goes against EVERY other natural principle. Gods are spread through people, not through independant observation.
Read history. It tells you many things. If you think the nature of God has not changed because of science, you are in clear denial of evidence.
Infants are barely aware of themselves. In fact, they aren't aware of themselves until they're a few months old.
God as an abstract, think-for-yourself concept: that doesn't happen until adolescence, generally around when the capacity for abstract thought and metacognition emerges.
Speaking of which, IMO there is too much overthinking going on in this thread for a simple concept:
Atheism: "There is no God."
Theism: "There is a God."
Agnosticism: "I don't know."
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
It is evidence for me, firsthand experience is evidence. Now, if I were to present it without tangible evidence, or without the capability to replicate the event, would a rational individual hold it as compelling evidence? Probably not. I do not delude myself into believing that my experiences would necessarily stand as evidence to another.
I am not stating that I am not biased, I am stating that the atheist stance should not be the default stance. The atheist stance is not a rational stance from a theist perspective in the same manner that theism is not rational from an atheist stance. It is hypocritical to claim otherwise. Neither stance is without bias, atheists only have some sway because their base of understanding is acceptable and a part of any rational theist.
This is only the perspective of the atheist, and not the perspective of the theist. It is only a belief based on your personal bias, not on fact. Atheism is just as indoctrinated as theism. You are a hypocrite when you force such a view on a theist and then claim they have no right to force a theist view on you. Quit forcing your beliefs concerning God on the theists, we have no more reason to accept your view than you do ours. There is no scientific evidence for the view of an infant on the concept of God, and the concept of God is not man made from a theists view. The question is untestable and your position does not rely on fact, it relies on the opposing view. Until the question is resolved, the most logical stance is somewhere between, not on the atheist side or the theist side of the discussion.
This nature of God was written by men, many of which were probably pushing for their own personal motivations. The nature of God as man understands it is mainly man's philosophies as to what it might be, God has not stated his nature completely in any sacred text. Religion has changed, but religion is the response of man to God and not God. Your view on the subject is off and your perspective is wrong to even debate the topic given your stance as to the reality of God. Your perspective is that God and religion are man-made and fictional, from that perspective, yes, it appears that the nature of God has changed, but from a theist perspective it has not.
Scientifically speaking, Regret, you would have to prove that infants DID know about God. Which you can't, so therefore an objective, rational opinion would dismiss the idea. It takes faith to make it work.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
That is my point. Atheism is not necessarily the default stance, no matter what atheists claim. Theism is not necessarily the default stance, no matter what theists claim. Both sides are biased, imo. Neither one is really in control of the situation, but they sure do think they are. The stance that atheism is the default is an entirely biased stance. I did not state that infants are theists, I stated that this is my belief, I did state that it is an unknown and as such our view should be that we do not know. I do not believe that without an understanding of the concept of God a person can be theist or atheist.
Just because science hasn't shown the existence of God, does not limit the possibility. Just because atheists deny the personal evidence of the theists does not make the personal evidence irrelevant. The atheist stance is not supported by science, but neither is the theists stance. Atheists feel that science supports their view. I, after twelve years of higher education and additional professional experience, believe that science supports the stance of the theist. Science cannot be used as support given this. Now, if science cannot be held as support for either position, which one has more support? I am biased, I accept that, but so is the atheist opposition.
That is my point.
Yes, it is subjective. I have not done a study on the subject, and do not plan on it as I have no interest in social psychology nor in other branches of psychology that would hold the topic as being relevant. But my experience does show my claim, which could be a similar view as seeing and believing a stereotype, but currently it is my view.
I think a great many people will take it as entirely unreasonable to say that science support theism, Regret. I think that is the kind of statement that greatly damages credibility.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
Agreed, objective, yes, although I think that rational should be removed. But I am not speaking as to objective thought.
This is assuming an atheist stance. Theists claim a great deal of personal, subjective, evidence as to God. Given this, from a theist stance such is not irrational, subjective yes, but not irrational.
Gender: Male Location: Drifting off around the bend
It supports theism as much as it does atheism. I don't make the claim that it does in fact support theism, although personally I believe it, which is what I stated. I do not believe that science supports atheism either, and do state that.
Yes, every time we go into our church [of the religion of atheism] the vicar [of atheism] says the words "And whenst though shall be buried, thou shalt be food for the worms of the Earth.
Whereas philosophers and fundamentalists are in a science room looking at the paranormal saying "Yeah this seems possible, we've tested it, looked at all the variables, and it turns out that humans do have souls that escape to the clouds when we die, hard to believe but it's true!"
KMC Community Forums
Oct 4th, 2006 04:00 AM
