It would have to be more than never having been taught about God; it would mean no exposure whatsoever to the concept. In every sense of the word, "God" is simply nonexistent in this person's consciousness; and in this day and age, I would imagine that to be a rare find, given the ubiquitousness of information.
Not only that (giving this further thought), but one would have to be equally isolated from the concept of systematic empirical inquiry. In other words, this person would have to have no biases either way. The closest modern example I can think of might be the feral child who is raised by wolves. Get someone like this thinking about the world and see what questions he/she asks, what conclusions are drawn and how the conclusions were arrived at.
Tall order, no doubt. But it would be interesting to see what developed.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
I thought Alliance was trying to imply that Christians all encouraged ignorance. Well maybe not, what can I say im stressed out I had to talk to the police morning. Maybe thats why I keep misintepreting people I am always stressed. *shrug*
__________________ Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
Taught was probably the wrong word, what I meant was someone who has ever heard of God or gods.
Hmm, I doubt that seeing Religion is a national curriculum IE something that must be taught in school.
In my school they teach alot of religion but no one listens, mainly christianity. Except when it comes to the last two years AKA Y10 n Y11 when we are doing our GCSEs. Then it's more about philosophy and moralities, quite interesting, but....the chavs are there and it's so ****ing annoying I feel like killing them.
Of course. Religion will ALWAYS be present. Three questions which first humans asked, which they still ask, and which Atheism does not deliver a satisfactory, nor a sure answer to are :
1) How did all this come to be?
2) Why am I here? and
3) What happens after I die?
Atheism fails to deliver also, espeically to the 3 questions every human has asked himself/herself at some point in their lives.
But you're right. Atheism does come later, and as I say, it only exists, and it only works in relation to Theism.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
1) It is better then making something up, it also strives to be answered which leads to more knowledge.
2) Why do we need a reason?
3) Nothing.
Buy satisfactory, do you mean feel good?
I don't think these are the main reasons that religion will be around, it gives some people comfort, a way out and many other reasons. I do believe that religion is on the decline and in maybe another 200 years or so it will not be predominant as it is now
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
You can find answers to that without Religion though.
The word derived from Theism. Atheism itself does not come later. It is a default through the definition of the lack of belief in a God. It can exist without Theism. It just wouldn't be defined because no one would know about God. But they would still all be Atheists (by our current definition where we know of a concept such as God).
People will always make mental maps to explain the world, absolutely. Throughout most of human history, that was part of religion's job. At some point, way back in prehistory, the first and simplest maps occurred. Now there's Science, the systematic, methodical way for understanding things, and it's been giving us the most reliable maps to date.
It is this power of Science upon which atheists explicitly/implicitly rest their case.
"How did this all come to happen?" Big Bang. Theory? Isn't everything?
"Why am I here?" Cuz your parents were naughty.
"What happens after I die?" Entropy.
I know those questions were not answered in the spirit you meant them, but then, that is not the job of empirical science, nor are those questions the concern of those who do not believe in God.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Good point. Technically, according to one definition of "atheism" (a state of being in which there are no theistic beliefs), you are correct. But my impression was that, in this thread, atheism was referring to the deliberate act of not believing in God, rather than a state of "innocence." By your definition, animals, vegetables and minerals are atheistic, obviously. But human beings won't stay innocent. Sooner or later, they will wonder and question; it is virtually inevitable. I would say atheism is default only if this wondering and questioning were not inevitable.
Perhaps the default state of the human being is to question.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on Nov 19th, 2006 at 09:37 PM
Perhaps, but it is a claim that cannot yet be proven. Yes, we have much evidense that contradicts the validity of most religious claims, especially about Christian concept of Creationism.
Many things contradict religion, not only science. Logic and Reasoning also contradict religion very very much.
However, all the scientific evidense we have, and all the reasoning we can collectively come up with does not yet prove Religion entirely wrong....only partially wrong.
There can be some truth to every religion...we just don't know what it is yet.
Erm, I never said that religion is needed to asnwer this questions. I said this is potentialy WHY Theism arrived in the FIRST place.
And no, Atheism could not stand without Theism, nor is it by default.
People can either - be unaware of the concept of God - which does not make them Atheists. Someone who is unaware of something has not made a decision on wether he believes it or not, one just has no knowledge.
OR
BE aware of the concept of God, and NOT believe in it.
In order for one to be aware of the concept of god, considering he/she/it cannot be proven, it needs to have someone who believe (theism).
Thus, Atheism cannot stand alone.
This is pretty logical, I would think.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
BOTH ARE DIFFERENT FORMS OF ATHEIST. There is also weak and strong atheism. You can't class Atheism as one when there are so many variations. There are also many variations of Agnosticism.
In fact, most of those fit so-called atheists like myself and so-called theists.
This is why your side of the debate is failing badly,, you're classing many different things as one and changing the definitions of words to fit your own upside-down, ****ed up way of thinking.
__________________
Bulbasaur, the original... Pepe.
Last edited by Raz on Jan 1st 2000 at 00:00AM
Last edited by It's xyz! on Nov 19th, 2006 at 11:03 PM
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
You said that "Of course. Religion will ALWAYS be present.", because atheism does not deliver satisfactory explanations. That I denied, because there can be explanations which are not religious that could be accepted as well. Religion does not need to be around. Nor will it necessarily always be.
Actually yes, atheism is the default for humans. One of the definitions of atheism is the lack of believe in a God. Humans fit that definition by default.
And yours is logical sure, but not in line with the actual definition, which states that people that are "unaware of the concept of God " are atheists. If one accepts that atheists are people that fit the category of atheism. Which I assume is self evident. You may argue against t, but you will be by definition wrong. If you think that the definition is stupid, very well, it might be, but it's the way it is in the English language.
So, no, atheism does not need theism to exist. The word needed theism to exist, and the concept needed theism. But even before the first God were created, that means before God existed people were atheist. They just didn't knew it. It's a word that states what people do or do not believe.
Pleas show me WHERE in your deffinition is a lack of concept of God mentioned or defined as Atheism, apart from your own mindeless edit then we'll talk again.
In order for you to deny exitance of god, or to have LACK of belief in God, you need to have the concept of what that is, first.
This is just too stupid to counter argue.
EVERY atheist has a concept of god, and EVERY atheist has made a concious decision, based on rationality that they either, deny or do not believe in God.
In order for a person to deny existance of something they need to be first AWARE of it.
If a person without a concept of God is introduced to the concept, they can either -
a) Accept it or
b) Deny it.
Atheism is not by default, get over it.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
No. That is wrong. Even if the concept did not exist to you, or anyone else. You would still fit the definition. We have a word for it because we know there is such a concept as God. If there wasn't such a concept asw God we wouldn't have the word. But we would still be atheists as we do not believe in God, since the concept doesn't exist.
It is just true. I am sorry that you do not understand the word atheism. You see it as an ideology. Which it can be. But it also describes a state of mind. That all humans have by default. To have something by default doesn't make it better, by the way.
Wrong. It is just wrong. Why can you not understand the word. Why do you have to go by what you have been told? Just read what atheism means. And go from there. Think for yourself.
Yes. Your point?
Okay, so, now that I have proven you wrong. Again. Could you stop insisting on your wrong understanding and we can get on with your thread (that already uses wrong definitions anyways)?
KMC Community Forums
Nov 19th, 2006 04:29 PM
In my school they teach alot of religion but no one listens, mainly christianity. Except when it comes to the last two years AKA Y10 n Y11 when we are doing our GCSEs. Then it's more about philosophy and moralities, quite interesting, but....the chavs are there and it's so ****ing annoying I feel like killing them.
