[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Which kind of nut are you?
[/quote]
LOL…I’m the kind of nut who believes there is a possibility of a God but can’t prove it. I’m also a nut who thinks that it’s important to have a healthy level of skepticism in everything you believe.
The problem is that the folks who are religious take the bible as fact instead of simply one option. The atheists pretend that there’s no probability at all that God exists. It’s impossible to carry on a good argument with such entrenched sides.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Which kind of nut are you?
[/quote]
LOL…I’m the kind of nut who believes there is a possibility of a God but can’t prove it. I’m also a nut who thinks that it’s important to have a healthy level of skepticism in everything you believe.
The problem is that the folks who are religious take the bible as fact instead of simply one option. The atheists pretend that there’s no probability at all that God exists. It’s impossible to carry on a good argument with such entrenched sides.
james
[/quote]
You’re an atheist. I believe in the possibility of a god too.
Concede raj. Kamui was dead on. You’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Edit: And by the way? How do you know they lack a belief in a ‘god’ or ‘gods?’ How do you know they don’t see their mother and father as nearly all powerful beings? Or ‘quackers’ the stuffed duck, who sometimes seems to grant wishes?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Which kind of nut are you?
[/quote]
LOL…I’m the kind of nut who believes there is a possibility of a God but can’t prove it. I’m also a nut who thinks that it’s important to have a healthy level of skepticism in everything you believe.
The problem is that the folks who are religious take the bible as fact instead of simply one option. The atheists pretend that there’s no probability at all that God exists. It’s impossible to carry on a good argument with such entrenched sides.
james
[/quote]Oh LOL!! Another nut who’s dogmatism regarding his truly nutty uncertainty is every bit as entrenched in the same kind AND degree of pre-comitted subjective faith as he arrogantly chides in everyone else. In other words yet another shallow non thinker who mistakes his utterly nutty declared skepticism for brilliant objective open mindedness. You’re a slave James. If you ever find that out and wish to be free, I’m easy to find.
It implications it brings about are really pretty cool. All sorts of implications can come about because of moral babies. Yet another crack in the slate of the tabula raza concept.
Anyhow, lots of amazing information out there right now. Like just yesterday I listened to this really sweet podcast from this site about all sorts of things relating to science, philosophy, anthro etc.
[quote]kamui wrote:
altruistic behavior and morality are two different things.
if babies have morals then ants are soviet agents.
And btw, babies are not “atheists”. They are simply not religious.
And their first quasi-religious ideas are usually “animist”.
[/quote]
Nope babies are atheists.
They don’t have a belief in god. Criteria met[/quote]
Sophism.
Atheism is a philosophical stance (hence the -ism suffix). Babies don’t have philosophical stances.
Babies are unemployed workers.
They don’t have a job. Criteria met.
Another proof that atheists are lazy.
[/quote]
Nope.
Unemployed workers are people actively seeking work. Stay at homes and children aren’t included in unemployment rates.
Criteria not met.
Babies lack a belief in god. They are atheists.
[/quote]
Yep, babies are pure atheists by definition in that they are virgin to even the concept of God. They lack even the concept of theology, therefore they are a-theists. There isn’t a more perfect example of an atheist than a baby, but I suppose it still depends on what sort of language and rules you buy into surrounding atheism and how it is defined.
The way I see it, there are two categories. People who are virgin to the concept of God, and then there are people who are familiar with the concept of gods who reject it in it’s entirety. One group is rejecting the category of ideas, the other lacks conception of the idea in the first place.
[quote]Severiano wrote:<<< Yep, babies are pure atheists by definition in that they are virgin to even the concept of God. <<<>>> The way I see it, there are two categories. People who are virgin to the concept of God, and then there are people who are familiar with the concept of gods who reject it in it’s entirety. One group is rejecting the category of ideas, the other lacks conception of the idea in the first place. [/quote]Not surprisingly, neither one of these is the way I see it.
If anything I’d argue that babies are ‘religious’ in the loose informal sense. That nearly everything seems ‘magical’ and ‘supernatural.’ That there isn’t a mechanical/physical rationale (that they can take note of) for the actions and events they see around them. No concept of physics, chemistry, etc.
If they cry, the woman-being comes in and somehow makes light appear before providing sustenance. That somehow the man-thing and woman-being can bring small living things into being within a box (the tv). Then the purple dinosaur (though they don’t know ‘dinosaur’) thing entertains them. Etc.
Concede raj. Kamui was dead on. You’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Edit: And by the way? How do you know they lack a belief in a ‘god’ or ‘gods?’ How do you know they don’t see their mother and father as nearly all powerful beings? Or ‘quackers’ the stuffed duck, who sometimes seems to grant wishes?
[/quote]
Because the god concept is too complex for the mind of a baby
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If anything I’d argue that babies are ‘religious’ in the loose informal sense. That nearly everything seems ‘magical’ and ‘supernatural.’ That there isn’t a mechanical/physical rationale (that they can take note of) for the actions and events they see around them. No concept of physics, chemistry, etc.
If they cry, the woman-being comes in and somehow makes light appear before providing sustenance. That somehow the man-thing and woman-being can bring small living things into being within a box (the tv). Then the purple dinosaur (though they don’t know ‘dinosaur’) thing entertains them. Etc. [/quote]
It seems the definition of god and religion can be molded into whatever’s conveinant. I’ve had one poster say a religion is simply a set of rules you live your life by and since I follow the law I belong to a religion.
I’ve held my definition of what constitutes an atheist. Why can’t you guys do the same with god or religion?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If anything I’d argue that babies are ‘religious’ in the loose informal sense. That nearly everything seems ‘magical’ and ‘supernatural.’ That there isn’t a mechanical/physical rationale (that they can take note of) for the actions and events they see around them. No concept of physics, chemistry, etc.
If they cry, the woman-being comes in and somehow makes light appear before providing sustenance. That somehow the man-thing and woman-being can bring small living things into being within a box (the tv). Then the purple dinosaur (though they don’t know ‘dinosaur’) thing entertains them. Etc. [/quote]
Stop conflating god and authority figure[/quote]
Authority figure? Oh yes, now that’s what a baby is thinking. “The authority figure has entered the room to make beings appear within the tv box, an event readily explained by physical, chemical, and technological know-how.”
Concede raj. Kamui was dead on. You’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Edit: And by the way? How do you know they lack a belief in a ‘god’ or ‘gods?’ How do you know they don’t see their mother and father as nearly all powerful beings? Or ‘quackers’ the stuffed duck, who sometimes seems to grant wishes?
[/quote]
Because the god concept is too complex for the mind of a baby[/quote]
Then so is, “There is no such thing as supernatural beings such as a god or gods.”
or,
“There is not enough evidence for me to believe in supernatural beings.”
And for all you know, everything is supernatural and magical to a baby…As Kamui said, animist-like.
And how come everyone isn’t more focused on babies being selfish little racists? How did this become “non-corrupted atheists (babies lol) can be ‘moral!’” Yeah, and apparently rather racist too, lol.