Discussion:
There is No Such Thing as an Atheist Baby
(too old to reply)
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-07 19:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
John Locke
2018-01-07 23:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
V***@gmail.com
2018-01-08 02:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
You didn't even read my article. did you, asshole?
Kevrob
2018-01-08 20:46:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by V***@gmail.com
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
You didn't even read my article. did you, asshole?
Since whe did you start writing for the Grauniad?

Brown's messed up.

See:

https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2014/31-january/features/features/help-thou-mine-unbelief

Kevin R
Kevrob
2018-01-08 20:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Since whe did you start writing for the Grauniad?
Note: all USENET posts complaining about typos MUST
contain a typo.

Kevin R
Teresita
2018-01-09 01:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by Kevrob
Since whe did you start writing for the Grauniad?
Note: all USENET posts complaining about typos MUST
contain a typo.
People who make tyops should be banned.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-11 07:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by V***@gmail.com
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
You didn't even read my article. did you, asshole?
Since whe did you start writing for the Grauniad?
Brown's messed up.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2014/31-january/features/features/help-thou-mine-unbelief
Kevin R
I meant the one I posted, of course.You need to learn to read in context.
hypatiab7
2018-01-10 02:53:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by V***@gmail.com
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
You didn't even read my article. did you, asshole?
He was replying to you, not the article. Most of us rarely read the links
you post. And we are well aware of what you are saying. I totally agree
with John Locke. I know you'll say that you don't care what I or John
Locke or any other atheist in alt.atheism thinks. We don't care what
you hink, either. (Think?) So, sickie, you have no reason to be in
alt.atheism. But, as long as you invade our newsgroup as a troll, we will
tell the truth whenever you lie. And, you lie a lot. Plus, the websites
you post for religious information are constantly proved to be wrong. That's what happens when you use creationist websites that don't always back you up. Maybe you should read the entire article before you post it. You have my
permission to use obscene childish language.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-01-08 20:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-09 14:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-09 15:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
Malcolm McMahon
2018-01-09 17:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.

Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost complete.

The template of religion.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-09 20:17:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.
They have a fuzzy idea of parents, which forms into a better one over
time.

And they don't have any idea of gods until their parents teach them -
and these are explained as uber parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost complete.
Bollocks.

The parent concept is there. They just are, and are the people who
feed and care for the baby (again, concepts that are initially fuzzy).

Gods have to be taught. And are explained in terms of higher level
parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The template of religion.
More bollocks.

Only if the parents teach it.
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-09 22:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.
They have a fuzzy idea of parents, which forms into a better one over
time.
And they don't have any idea of gods until their parents teach them -
and these are explained as uber parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost complete.
Bollocks.
The parent concept is there. They just are, and are the people who
feed and care for the baby (again, concepts that are initially fuzzy).
Gods have to be taught. And are explained in terms of higher level
parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The template of religion.
More bollocks.
Only if the parents teach it.
I didn't notice you citing any authorities on the subject. You don't really think people will simply take your word for it.
Yap Honghor
2018-01-10 13:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer
babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.
They have a fuzzy idea of parents, which forms into a better one over
time.
And they don't have any idea of gods until their parents teach them -
and these are explained as uber parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost complete.
Bollocks.
The parent concept is there. They just are, and are the people who
feed and care for the baby (again, concepts that are initially fuzzy).
Gods have to be taught. And are explained in terms of higher level
parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The template of religion.
More bollocks.
Only if the parents teach it.
I didn't notice you citing any authorities on the subject. You don't really think people will simply take your word for it.
Then why are you taking the words of the ancient goat herders for it?
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 15:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer
babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are
merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.
They have a fuzzy idea of parents, which forms into a better one over
time.
And they don't have any idea of gods until their parents teach them -
and these are explained as uber parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost complete.
Bollocks.
The parent concept is there. They just are, and are the people who
feed and care for the baby (again, concepts that are initially fuzzy).
Gods have to be taught. And are explained in terms of higher level
parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The template of religion.
More bollocks.
Only if the parents teach it.
I didn't notice you citing any authorities on the subject. You don't really think people will simply take your word for it.
Then why are you taking the words of the ancient goat herders for it?
Ну, вы не понимаете письменный английский, поэтому я подумал, что попробую русский.
hypatiab7
2018-01-11 05:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer
babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are
merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.
They have a fuzzy idea of parents, which forms into a better one over
time.
And they don't have any idea of gods until their parents teach them -
and these are explained as uber parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost complete.
Bollocks.
The parent concept is there. They just are, and are the people who
feed and care for the baby (again, concepts that are initially fuzzy).
Gods have to be taught. And are explained in terms of higher level
parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The template of religion.
More bollocks.
Only if the parents teach it.
I didn't notice you citing any authorities on the subject. You don't really think people will simply take your word for it.
Then why are you taking the words of the ancient goat herders for it?
Ну, вы не понимаете письменный английский, поэтому я подумал, что попробую русский.
As usul, when ArtieJoe can't answer a question, he splutters in Russian.
Poor Sleeper.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-11 05:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 21:38:40 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer
babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are
merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.
They have a fuzzy idea of parents, which forms into a better one over
time.
And they don't have any idea of gods until their parents teach them -
and these are explained as uber parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost complete.
Bollocks.
The parent concept is there. They just are, and are the people who
feed and care for the baby (again, concepts that are initially fuzzy).
Gods have to be taught. And are explained in terms of higher level
parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The template of religion.
More bollocks.
Only if the parents teach it.
I didn't notice you citing any authorities on the subject. You don't
really think people will simply take your word for it.
The proven serial liar knows that this describes many of us here, and
we are using ourselves as counter-examples to the original claim.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Yap Honghor
Then why are you taking the words of the ancient goat herders for it?
??, ?? ?? ????????? ?????????? ??????????, ??????? ? ???????, ??? ???????? ???????.
As usul, when ArtieJoe can't answer a question, he splutters in Russian.
Poor Sleeper.
He's a raving loonie.
Olrik
2018-01-11 05:55:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 21:38:40 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer
babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are
merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.
They have a fuzzy idea of parents, which forms into a better one over
time.
And they don't have any idea of gods until their parents teach them -
and these are explained as uber parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost complete.
Bollocks.
The parent concept is there. They just are, and are the people who
feed and care for the baby (again, concepts that are initially fuzzy).
Gods have to be taught. And are explained in terms of higher level
parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The template of religion.
More bollocks.
Only if the parents teach it.
I didn't notice you citing any authorities on the subject. You don't
really think people will simply take your word for it.
The proven serial liar knows that this describes many of us here, and
we are using ourselves as counter-examples to the original claim.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Yap Honghor
Then why are you taking the words of the ancient goat herders for it?
??, ?? ?? ????????? ?????????? ??????????, ??????? ? ???????, ??? ???????? ???????.
As usul, when ArtieJoe can't answer a question, he splutters in Russian.
Poor Sleeper.
He's a raving loonie.
He's Kevin Costner!
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-11 07:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 21:38:40 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer
babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are
merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.
They have a fuzzy idea of parents, which forms into a better one over
time.
And they don't have any idea of gods until their parents teach them -
and these are explained as uber parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost complete.
Bollocks.
The parent concept is there. They just are, and are the people who
feed and care for the baby (again, concepts that are initially fuzzy).
Gods have to be taught. And are explained in terms of higher level
parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The template of religion.
More bollocks.
Only if the parents teach it.
I didn't notice you citing any authorities on the subject. You don't
really think people will simply take your word for it.
The proven serial liar
Look who's talking

https://tinyurl.com/yd59p2kt
hleopold
2018-01-11 09:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 21:38:40 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-b
aby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term
"atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn
the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no
longer
babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents
are
merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents
give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and
demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child
recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.
They have a fuzzy idea of parents, which forms into a better one over
time.
And they don't have any idea of gods until their parents teach them -
and these are explained as uber parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost
complete.
Bollocks.
The parent concept is there. They just are, and are the people who
feed and care for the baby (again, concepts that are initially fuzzy).
Gods have to be taught. And are explained in terms of higher level
parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The template of religion.
More bollocks.
Only if the parents teach it.
I didn't notice you citing any authorities on the subject. You don't
really think people will simply take your word for it.
The proven serial liar knows that this describes many of us here, and
we are using ourselves as counter-examples to the original claim.
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Yap Honghor
Then why are you taking the words of the ancient goat herders for it?
??, ?? ?? ????????? ?????????? ??????????, ??????? ? ???????, ??? ???????? ???????.
As usul, when ArtieJoe can't answer a question, he splutters in Russian.
Poor Sleeper.
He's a raving loonie.
He thinks he is insulting her by claiming that since she can’t
read/comprehend English, he will try in Russian.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

"No gods were harmed during the making of this post" - Ernest Fairchild
hleopold
2018-01-11 09:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-ba
by-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term
"atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn
the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no
longer
babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents
are
merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents
give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and
demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child
recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.
They have a fuzzy idea of parents, which forms into a better one over
time.
And they don't have any idea of gods until their parents teach them -
and these are explained as uber parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost
complete.
Bollocks.
The parent concept is there. They just are, and are the people who
feed and care for the baby (again, concepts that are initially fuzzy).
Gods have to be taught. And are explained in terms of higher level
parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The template of religion.
More bollocks.
Only if the parents teach it.
I didn't notice you citing any authorities on the subject. You don't
really think people will simply take your word for it.
Then why are you taking the words of the ancient goat herders for it?
Ну, вы не понимаете письменный
английский, поэтому я подумал, что
попробую русский.
As usul, when ArtieJoe can't answer a question, he splutters in Russian.
Poor Sleeper.
Ah, how cute, Arty-Joe thinks you can read English, so he is trying Russian.
Silly Arty-Joe. No spanky.

(I used to moderate a BDSM board on the ACLU’s message boards on AOL.
Mostly nice folks, but there are always a few weirdos. And me, Mr. Vanilla.)
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“I have an inferiority complex, but it's not a very good one.“ -
Vintagewheels
Yap Honghor
2018-01-11 10:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Yap Honghor
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer
babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are
merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.
They have a fuzzy idea of parents, which forms into a better one over
time.
And they don't have any idea of gods until their parents teach them -
and these are explained as uber parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost complete.
Bollocks.
The parent concept is there. They just are, and are the people who
feed and care for the baby (again, concepts that are initially fuzzy).
Gods have to be taught. And are explained in terms of higher level
parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The template of religion.
More bollocks.
Only if the parents teach it.
I didn't notice you citing any authorities on the subject. You don't really think people will simply take your word for it.
Then why are you taking the words of the ancient goat herders for it?
Ну, вы не понимаете письменный английский, поэтому я подумал, что попробую русский.
I know you do, don't be shy.
You theists always have double standard and tell lie.
Bu hiding behind a foreign language, you cannot cover your shame....
Alex W.
2018-01-10 00:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 17:59:52 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
To a baby, where's the difference? Parents supply all needs. Parents give and
parents take away. Parents determine right and wrong. Parents love and demand
love. To infants, parents must seem omnipotent. And each child recapitulates
"the fall", as they learn to say no.
They have a fuzzy idea of parents, which forms into a better one over
time.
"Fuzzy" is a massive understatement. A child does not develop a sense
of self until 15-24 months of age. At birth, all the wiring is in place
but there is no capacity to process sensory input. In short, they are
incapable of having ideas or notions.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And they don't have any idea of gods until their parents teach them -
and these are explained as uber parents.
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Infants may not know the word "god" but the concept is there almost complete.
Bollocks.
The parent concept is there. They just are, and are the people who
feed and care for the baby (again, concepts that are initially fuzzy).
Gods have to be taught. And are explained in terms of higher level
parents.
Exactly so: they are taught to see gods as a form of uber-parents. It's
an extrapolation or extension of a concept they are intimately familiar
with.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Malcolm McMahon
The template of religion.
More bollocks.
Only if the parents teach it.
Only if parents each *religion*.

The *principle* of a being that gives and takes away, that watches over
the child and rules every aspect of its existence -- that already exists
because that is a parent to an infant.
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 01:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:58:03 -0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
Post by Malcolm McMahon
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
Babies are born with actual gods, and when they learn their parents are merely
human, many of them look for a substitute that isn't.
Don't be silly. When gods are introduced, they are presented as
uber-parents because they already have the concept of mummy and daddy
but not gods.
True to form, you have a confident self assured opinion on this subject.
So impressed with yourself are you that you never bother to quote a recognized authority on this or any other topic. The issue of your own credibility is far from your mind, but glaringly obvious to me and numerous others.
MattB
2018-01-09 20:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
Tim
2018-01-09 21:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
MattB
2018-01-09 23:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
Kevrob
2018-01-10 00:04:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MattB
Atheism is the belief no god exist.
Atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in ghod or ghodz.
Post by MattB
Agnostics just don't know either way
Some haven't made up their mind, but might, later on.
Others think knowledge one way or the other impossible.

Not everyone fits in your little boxes.
Post by MattB
and have a open mind.
Many atheists, myself included, are technical agnostics,
as we are willing to change our minds, in the vanishingly
small chance that any supernatural beings exist, and can
be shown to be other than fantasy.

In the interim, living as an atheist makes good sense.
Call that "practical atheism" if you will.

One can't sit on the fence about a question that can
influence the way one will live one's life. I suppose
one could, but "the unexamined life is not worth living."*

Kevin R

Socrates, according to Plato

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unexamined_life_is_not_worth_living
MattB
2018-01-10 00:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by MattB
Atheism is the belief no god exist.
Atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in ghod or ghodz.
Post by MattB
Agnostics just don't know either way
Some haven't made up their mind, but might, later on.
That is true if presented with evidence that is not just a belief.
Post by Kevrob
Others think knowledge one way or the other impossible.
At this time maybe. Maybe we just lack the technology to know.
Post by Kevrob
Not everyone fits in your little boxes.
Didn't say they did but not everyone fits into the little boxes
supplied by the Militant atheist either.
Post by Kevrob
Post by MattB
and have a open mind.
Many atheists, myself included, are technical agnostics,
as we are willing to change our minds, in the vanishingly
small chance that any supernatural beings exist, and can
be shown to be other than fantasy.
Yes I have seen on other atheist groups people who consider themselves
atheist that believe in souls and such just not God or gods.
Post by Kevrob
In the interim, living as an atheist makes good sense.
Call that "practical atheism" if you will.
I can except that. When you get militant or try to use soviet type
agendas then I do take offense.
Post by Kevrob
One can't sit on the fence about a question that can
influence the way one will live one's life. I suppose
one could, but "the unexamined life is not worth living."*
Why would it effect your life?
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
Socrates, according to Plato
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unexamined_life_is_not_worth_living
Rationale
This statement relates to Socrates' understanding and attitude towards
death and his commitment to fulfill his goal of investigating and
understanding the statement of the Pythia. Socrates understood the
Pythia's response to Chaerephon's question as a communication from the
god Apollo and this became Socrates's prime directive, his raison
d'etre. For Socrates, to be separated from elenchus by exile
(preventing him from investigating the statement) was therefore a fate
worse than death. Since Socrates was religious and trusted his
religious experiences, such as his guiding daimonic voice, he
accordingly preferred to continue to seek the true answer to his
question, in the after-life, than live a life not identifying the
answer on earth.

Meaning
The words were supposedly spoken by Socrates at his trial after he
chose death rather than exile. They represent (in modern terms) the
noble choice, that is, the choice of death in the face of an
alternative.

Interpretation
See also: Trial of Socrates § Interpretations of the trial of Socrates
Socrates believed that philosophy - the love of wisdom - was the most
important pursuit above all else. For some, he exemplifies, more than
anyone else in history, the pursuit of wisdom through questioning and
logical argument, by examining and by thinking. His 'examination' of
life in this way spilled out into the lives of others, such that they
began their own 'examination' of life, but he knew they would all die
one day, as saying that a life without philosophy - an 'unexamined'
life - was not worth living.

Sound to me like he is saying one should explore life and have a open
mind. Basically to question everything.

To some atheist on here to have a open mind and question everything
makes one a troll. Then again I can say the same for Christian
Fundamentalist also.
Kevrob
2018-01-10 01:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MattB
Post by Kevrob
Post by MattB
Atheism is the belief no god exist.
Atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in ghod or ghodz.
Post by MattB
Agnostics just don't know either way
Some haven't made up their mind, but might, later on.
That is true if presented with evidence that is not just a belief.
Post by Kevrob
Others think knowledge one way or the other impossible.
At this time maybe. Maybe we just lack the technology to know.
Post by Kevrob
Not everyone fits in your little boxes.
Didn't say they did but not everyone fits into the little boxes
supplied by the Militant atheist either.
Post by Kevrob
Post by MattB
and have a open mind.
Many atheists, myself included, are technical agnostics,
as we are willing to change our minds, in the vanishingly
small chance that any supernatural beings exist, and can
be shown to be other than fantasy.
Yes I have seen on other atheist groups people who consider themselves
atheist that believe in souls and such just not God or gods.
Post by Kevrob
In the interim, living as an atheist makes good sense.
Call that "practical atheism" if you will.
I can except that. When you get militant or try to use soviet type
agendas then I do take offense.
Post by Kevrob
One can't sit on the fence about a question that can
influence the way one will live one's life. I suppose
one could, but "the unexamined life is not worth living."*
Why would it effect your life?
One's position on the existence of ghodz might lead one to adopt
a religious faith, or not, and with that religious practice, or not.
One might act differently depending on any belief in an afterlife, or
ghosts, or the UFO cult, or astrology, or any brand of woo-woo.
Post by MattB
Post by Kevrob
Socrates, according to Plato
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unexamined_life_is_not_worth_living
Needs to be marked as a quotation:

[quote]
Post by MattB
Rationale......
[/quote]

....which did NOT need to be copied here, as anybody can read a
Wikipedia link, and you did not comment on anything specific, but
the page as a whole.
Post by MattB
Sound to me like he is saying one should explore life and have a open
mind. Basically to question everything.
Questioning is at the heart of the Socratic method....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

...as well as it is for methodological skepticism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_skepticism

aka "Cartesian doubt."
Post by MattB
To some atheist on here to have a open mind and question everything
makes one a troll.
Only if one is JAQing off.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Post by MattB
Then again I can say the same for Christian
Fundamentalist also.
In the usual form of mock astonishment that one can actually
be a skeptic, an unbeliever, and still live a moral and fulfilled
life, unparalyzed by the fear of a cosmic torturer or even loss
of favor of a benevolent dictator.

Kevin R
MattB
2018-01-10 04:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by MattB
Post by Kevrob
Post by MattB
Atheism is the belief no god exist.
Atheism is the LACK OF BELIEF in ghod or ghodz.
Post by MattB
Agnostics just don't know either way
Some haven't made up their mind, but might, later on.
That is true if presented with evidence that is not just a belief.
Post by Kevrob
Others think knowledge one way or the other impossible.
At this time maybe. Maybe we just lack the technology to know.
Post by Kevrob
Not everyone fits in your little boxes.
Didn't say they did but not everyone fits into the little boxes
supplied by the Militant atheist either.
Post by Kevrob
Post by MattB
and have a open mind.
Many atheists, myself included, are technical agnostics,
as we are willing to change our minds, in the vanishingly
small chance that any supernatural beings exist, and can
be shown to be other than fantasy.
Yes I have seen on other atheist groups people who consider themselves
atheist that believe in souls and such just not God or gods.
Post by Kevrob
In the interim, living as an atheist makes good sense.
Call that "practical atheism" if you will.
I can except that. When you get militant or try to use soviet type
agendas then I do take offense.
Post by Kevrob
One can't sit on the fence about a question that can
influence the way one will live one's life. I suppose
one could, but "the unexamined life is not worth living."*
Why would it effect your life?
One's position on the existence of ghodz might lead one to adopt
a religious faith, or not, and with that religious practice, or not.
One might act differently depending on any belief in an afterlife, or
ghosts, or the UFO cult, or astrology, or any brand of woo-woo.
The only one to date I believe might be true is UFO. I mean we will
if we ever can visit other places. Hope we aren't the only life in
the Universe. Those drawing in Peru make me wonder but then again
isn't proof.
Post by Kevrob
Post by MattB
Post by Kevrob
Socrates, according to Plato
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unexamined_life_is_not_worth_living
[quote]
Post by MattB
Rationale......
[/quote]
....which did NOT need to be copied here, as anybody can read a
Wikipedia link, and you did not comment on anything specific, but
the page as a whole.
Post by MattB
Sound to me like he is saying one should explore life and have a open
mind. Basically to question everything.
Questioning is at the heart of the Socratic method....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method
...as well as it is for methodological skepticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_skepticism
aka "Cartesian doubt."
Post by MattB
To some atheist on here to have a open mind and question everything
makes one a troll.
Only if one is JAQing off.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Post by MattB
Then again I can say the same for Christian
Fundamentalist also.
In the usual form of mock astonishment that one can actually
be a skeptic, an unbeliever, and still live a moral and fulfilled
life, unparalyzed by the fear of a cosmic torturer or even loss
of favor of a benevolent dictator.
I know personally several atheist/agnostics that are more moral than
any theist and yet live and let live for he most part. Then there are
atheist every bit as extreme as any fundamentalist Christian.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
Teresita
2018-01-10 01:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MattB
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. Agnostics are
atheists because if you don't know there's a god then you certainly
don't believe in one.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
MattB
2018-01-10 04:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of gods. Agnostics are
atheists because if you don't know there's a god then you certainly
don't believe in one.
I've never met a agnostic that acts like a fundamentalist Christian
have seen atheist that act like that.

No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Teresita
2018-01-10 12:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 12:05:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
--
WRONG

ag·nos·tic

noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
MattB
2018-01-10 22:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
--
WRONG
ag·nos·tic
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Correct.
Teresita
2018-01-11 02:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
--
WRONG
ag·nos·tic
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
If a person does not believe in a god, then they are an atheist. Not
claiming belief or disbelief is fine, if it is a bit gooey, but the
important thing is not outright believing in a god, which punches their
atheist ticket.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
MattB
2018-01-11 04:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
--
WRONG
ag·nos·tic
noun
1.
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
If a person does not believe in a god, then they are an atheist. Not
claiming belief or disbelief is fine, if it is a bit gooey, but the
important thing is not outright believing in a god, which punches their
atheist ticket.
What do you have against atheist? Myself I have no problem with the
average atheist or theist. I do have a problem with the New/militant
atheist, Fundamentalist/evangelist Christians, Radical Islam and
Orthodox Jews, to me they are much alike in how they act and believe
people need believe as they command..
MattB
2018-01-10 22:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
That isn't so if it were why two different words with different
meaning. Even this groups original FAQ admits they aren't the same.
Teresita
2018-01-11 02:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MattB
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
That isn't so if it were why two different words with different
meaning. Even this groups original FAQ admits they aren't the same.
That was before new atheism which refuses to let theists define atheism
as the belief there is no god (which had resulted in "strong" and "weak"
atheism and that whole incomprehensible stew). Think of it as akin to
the Popper revolution of the scientific method.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
MattB
2018-01-11 04:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
That isn't so if it were why two different words with different
meaning. Even this groups original FAQ admits they aren't the same.
That was before new atheism which refuses to let theists define atheism
as the belief there is no god (which had resulted in "strong" and "weak"
atheism and that whole incomprehensible stew). Think of it as akin to
the Popper revolution of the scientific method.
I consider New atheism to be a militant type of atheism where the
atheist act and respond as if atheism is in itself a religious belief.

Now as to Popper's method can you use that and provide evidence God
exist or doesn't exist?
Dreamer In Colore
2018-01-11 04:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
That's not accurate.

An agnostic holds the position of "there isn't enough information". An
atheist holds the positon of "You think there's a deity? I don't".

I've always held the opinion that agnostics are hedging their bets;
wouldn't it be more intellectually rigorous and honest to say "you
must be joking about that whole omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent
thing" rather than "I don't have enough information with which I can
form a reasonable opinion."?
--
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

"If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have
perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another."

Epicurus
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-11 04:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:42:42 -0500, Dreamer In Colore
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
That's not accurate.
It knows - it's trolling.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
An agnostic holds the position of "there isn't enough information". An
atheist holds the positon of "You think there's a deity? I don't".
Why not just say an atheist is somebody who isn't theist?
Post by Dreamer In Colore
I've always held the opinion that agnostics are hedging their bets;
wouldn't it be more intellectually rigorous and honest to say "you
must be joking about that whole omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent
thing" rather than "I don't have enough information with which I can
form a reasonable opinion."?
Atheist and agnostic are orthogonal. One can be either, neither or
both - the first is about whether or not one is theist and the second
is a belief about knowledge of something that is part of the theist's
paradigm, not the atheist's.

So those of us who have never been theist, or who lost their theism as
they grew up, have nothing to be agnostic about _or_ to believe
doesn't exist. It's just something theists believe as part of their
religion.

But try getting the majority of theists to understand this. As far as
they're concerned it's real and they can't get their minds around how
people outside that religion see it.
hypatiab7
2018-01-11 05:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
Religious Agnostis do.
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-11 05:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 21:35:13 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by Teresita
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
Religious Agnostis do.
Honest theists admit that they believe, but don't actually know.
hleopold
2018-01-11 09:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 21:35:13 -0800 (PST), hypatiab7
Post by hypatiab7
Post by MattB
No being agnostic is not the same as being a atheist although we do
share some common thoughts.
Being an agnostic is precisely the same as being an atheist. Neither
one believes in a god.
Religious Agnostis do.
Honest theists admit that they believe, but don't actually know.
That is what Fr. Brenner always told me, but than he was a Jesuit. He knew I
was an atheist (to be) long before I knew. He told me to try to be the best
person I could be whether or not I stayed in the church. That there were
plenty of good folks who weren’t Catholic, Christian or even religious at
all. Fr. Brenner was a good man and always spoke as honestly as he knew how.
It was because of talks with him that when I did drop out it was pretty easy
and not a huge thing to deal with sociologically. It still took me years
before I could actually use a swear word. ;-)
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“They are actually a manifestation of the famed Usenet hydra: you cut off
one head, and a stupider one grows back...“-Bonfire of the Deities
Olrik
2018-01-10 04:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!

Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.

Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
MattB
2018-01-10 04:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 21:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists avoid religion because it has too many rules that would cramp your style.You want to do whatever the fuck you want all the time without feeling bad about it.
Hollis Brown Jr.
2018-01-10 22:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists . . .
MattB is not atheist, Comrade Popoff. This is something he repeats over and over and . . .

Perhaps this will help you with your reading problem:

http://education.seattlepi.com/remedial-english-classes-community-college-1104.html
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 23:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hollis Brown Jr.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists . . .
MattB is not atheist, Comrade Popoff. This is something he repeats over and over and . . .
Really? I could not find it in the Google archives. I did 4 separate
searches for it. This is what happens every time an atheist tells me
about AA history and I look for it. You all have the same tricks.
Hollis Brown Jr.
2018-01-10 23:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Hollis Brown Jr.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists . . .
MattB is not atheist, Comrade Popoff. This is something he repeats over and over and . . .
Really? I could not find it in the Google archives. I did 4 separate
searches for it. This is what happens every time an atheist tells me
about AA history and I look for it. You all have the same tricks.
(shrug) So, then, we can add "inept researcher" to your list of wonderful attributes.

Never mind research, then, just ask the guy how often he posts about being agnostic. He is not atheist, so you can trust him, right?
Cloud Hobbit
2018-01-11 00:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's escapism. They want freedom from rules.

Not at all.
Rules are important but they must be based on reality.

The rules of the bible are mostly bullshit.

Claiming God gave us insane rules means he is insane as well.
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-11 03:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
It's escapism. They want freedom from rules.
Not at all.
Rules are important but they must be based on reality.
After seeing you in action here,we are no longer interested in your version of reality.
Post by v***@gmail.com
The rules of the bible are mostly bullshit.
What do you care? You don't follow any of them.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Claiming God gave us insane rules means he is insane as well.
He's not your God. Mind your own fucking business.
Kevrob
2018-01-11 04:35:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
It's escapism. They want freedom from rules.
Not at all.
Rules are important but they must be based on reality.
After seeing you in action here,we are no longer interested in your version of reality.
Are you the King of something, Tandy? No? Then why the royal "we?"
You are speaking either for yourself, or for a small group of like-
minded trolls.

You don't speak for a.a non-troll regulars.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
The rules of the bible are mostly bullshit.
What do you care? You don't follow any of them.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Claiming God gave us insane rules means he is insane as well.
He's not your God. Mind your own fucking business.
He's nobody's ghod. Yahooey is a legend.

Kevin R
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-11 07:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
It's escapism. They want freedom from rules.
Not at all.
Rules are important but they must be based on reality.
After seeing you in action here,we are no longer interested in your version of reality.
Are you the King of something, Tandy?
I actually come from aristocracy.One of my uncles was a count in the old Russian Empire. His last name was "Tando". His son, my Grandfather, was called"Tandofsky", which means "son of Tando."
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-11 07:54:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
It's escapism. They want freedom from rules.
Not at all.
Rules are important but they must be based on reality.
After seeing you in action here,we are no longer interested in your version of reality.
Are you the King of something, Tandy?
I actually come from aristocracy.One of my relatives was a count in the old Russian Empire. His last name was "Tando". His son, my Grandfather, was called"Tandofsky", which means "son of Tando."
Cloud Hobbit
2018-01-11 08:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
It's escapism. They want freedom from rules.
Not at all.
Rules are important but they must be based on reality.
After seeing you in action here,we are no longer interested in your version of reality.
Post by v***@gmail.com
The rules of the bible are mostly bullshit.
What do you care? You don't follow any of them.
Post by v***@gmail.com
Claiming God gave us insane rules means he is insane as well.
He's not your God. Mind your own fucking business.

I'm on an atheist NG. This is my business, troll.
MattB
2018-01-10 22:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
John the Baptist baptized infants? Where is that?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists avoid religion because it has too many rules that would cramp your style.You want to do whatever the fuck you want all the time without feeling bad about it.
Please do not call me a atheist.

How many different denominations are there all with different rules
and morals? How many people have you Christians killed just because a
man wouldn't kiss a ring or a women knew a little to much on how herbs
and healing and worked outside one of your Churches. You killed
people for helping others as Jesus said to do. PLEASE do not talk to
me about the greatness of scum sucking people like you.

You Christians don't even follow your own Bible and can't agree on
it's meaning and worse yet have just plain made shit up that it
doesn't support.
Hollis Brown Jr.
2018-01-10 22:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MattB
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
John the Baptist baptized infants? Where is that?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists avoid religion because it has too many rules that would cramp your style.You want to do whatever the fuck you want all the time without feeling bad about it.
Please do not call me a atheist.
How many different denominations are there all with different rules
and morals? How many people have you Christians killed just because a
man wouldn't kiss a ring or a women knew a little to much on how herbs
and healing and worked outside one of your Churches. You killed
people for helping others as Jesus said to do. PLEASE do not talk to
me about the greatness of scum sucking people like you.
You Christians don't even follow your own Bible and can't agree on
it's meaning and worse yet have just plain made shit up that it
doesn't support.
Hilarious. He calls an agnostic an atheist and you call a Jew a Christian.

He babbles about being a Jew even more often than you claim agnosticism. It boggles the mind that you could have missed it.

Neither one of you read much of anything, do you? You're both in such a hurry to post your displeasure with atheists that you can't be bothered.
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 23:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hollis Brown Jr.
Post by MattB
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
John the Baptist baptized infants? Where is that?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists avoid religion because it has too many rules that would cramp your style.You want to do whatever the fuck you want all the time without feeling bad about it.
Please do not call me a atheist.
How many different denominations are there all with different rules
and morals? How many people have you Christians killed just because a
man wouldn't kiss a ring or a women knew a little to much on how herbs
and healing and worked outside one of your Churches. You killed
people for helping others as Jesus said to do. PLEASE do not talk to
me about the greatness of scum sucking people like you.
You Christians don't even follow your own Bible and can't agree on
it's meaning and worse yet have just plain made shit up that it
doesn't support.
Hilarious. He calls an agnostic an atheist and you call a Jew a Christian.
He babbles about being a Jew even more often than you claim agnosticism. It boggles the mind that you could have missed it.
Neither one of you read much of anything, do you? You're both in such a hurry to post your displeasure with atheists that you can't be bothered.
Yes, I'm in a hurry to finish. I want to get away from atheists as fast as possible to someplace where the air is clean. With you clods in the vicinity, it smells of deceit, ignorance, and moral decay.
Kevrob
2018-01-11 00:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Yes, I'm in a hurry to finish. I want to get away from atheists as fast as possible to someplace where the air is clean. With you clods in the vicinity, it smells of deceit, ignorance, and moral decay.
Easy solution: don't bother reading the group, if it
angers you so. Don't post here, either. Leave us to
our "moral decay," troll.

Kevin R
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-11 07:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by v***@gmail.com
Yes, I'm in a hurry to finish. I want to get away from atheists as fast as possible to someplace where the air is clean. With you clods in the vicinity, it smells of deceit, ignorance, and moral decay.
Easy solution: don't bother reading the group, if it
angers you so. Don't post here, either. Leave us to
our "moral decay," troll.
Kevin R
I come here on a mission, to expose and root out dishonesty and hypocrisy.
I do it all over the internet. I will continue my crusade. The stink of atheism is merely an occupational hazard.
hypatiab7
2018-01-11 06:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Hollis Brown Jr.
Post by MattB
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
John the Baptist baptized infants? Where is that?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists avoid religion because it has too many rules that would cramp your style.You want to do whatever the fuck you want all the time without feeling bad about it.
Please do not call me a atheist.
How many different denominations are there all with different rules
and morals? How many people have you Christians killed just because a
man wouldn't kiss a ring or a women knew a little to much on how herbs
and healing and worked outside one of your Churches. You killed
people for helping others as Jesus said to do. PLEASE do not talk to
me about the greatness of scum sucking people like you.
You Christians don't even follow your own Bible and can't agree on
it's meaning and worse yet have just plain made shit up that it
doesn't support.
Hilarious. He calls an agnostic an atheist and you call a Jew a Christian.
He babbles about being a Jew even more often than you claim agnosticism. It boggles the mind that you could have missed it.
Neither one of you read much of anything, do you? You're both in such a hurry to post your displeasure with atheists that you can't be bothered.
Yes, I'm in a hurry to finish. I want to get away from atheists as fast as possible to someplace where the air is clean. With you clods in the vicinity, it smells of deceit, ignorance, and moral decay.
How ... er ... poetic? You were finished here many years ago. We only
respond to you out of pity. You scream for attention.
hleopold
2018-01-11 09:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by hypatiab7
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-bab
y-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation.
They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term
"atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn
the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no
longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding
beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
John the Baptist baptized infants? Where is that?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists avoid religion because it has
too many rules that would cramp your style.You want to do whatever the
fuck you want all the time without feeling bad about it.
Please do not call me a atheist.
How many different denominations are there all with different rules
and morals? How many people have you Christians killed just because a
man wouldn't kiss a ring or a women knew a little to much on how herbs
and healing and worked outside one of your Churches. You killed
people for helping others as Jesus said to do. PLEASE do not talk to
me about the greatness of scum sucking people like you.
You Christians don't even follow your own Bible and can't agree on
it's meaning and worse yet have just plain made shit up that it
doesn't support.
Hilarious. He calls an agnostic an atheist and you call a Jew a Christian.
He babbles about being a Jew even more often than you claim agnosticism.
It boggles the mind that you could have missed it.
Neither one of you read much of anything, do you? You're both in such a
hurry to post your displeasure with atheists that you can't be bothered.
Yes, I'm in a hurry to finish. I want to get away from atheists as fast as
possible to someplace where the air is clean. With you clods in the
vicinity, it smells of deceit, ignorance, and moral decay.
How ... er ... poetic? You were finished here many years ago. We only
respond to you out of pity. You scream for attention.
So Arty-Joe is a masochist. I guess that makes us the sadists who keep
telling him “no."
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“There's no upper limit to the speed of stupidity“-Al Klein
Yap Honghor
2018-01-11 10:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Hollis Brown Jr.
Post by MattB
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
John the Baptist baptized infants? Where is that?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists avoid religion because it has too many rules that would cramp your style.You want to do whatever the fuck you want all the time without feeling bad about it.
Please do not call me a atheist.
How many different denominations are there all with different rules
and morals? How many people have you Christians killed just because a
man wouldn't kiss a ring or a women knew a little to much on how herbs
and healing and worked outside one of your Churches. You killed
people for helping others as Jesus said to do. PLEASE do not talk to
me about the greatness of scum sucking people like you.
You Christians don't even follow your own Bible and can't agree on
it's meaning and worse yet have just plain made shit up that it
doesn't support.
Hilarious. He calls an agnostic an atheist and you call a Jew a Christian.
He babbles about being a Jew even more often than you claim agnosticism. It boggles the mind that you could have missed it.
Neither one of you read much of anything, do you? You're both in such a hurry to post your displeasure with atheists that you can't be bothered.
Yes, I'm in a hurry to finish. I want to get away from atheists as fast as possible to someplace where the air is clean. With you clods in the vicinity, it smells of deceit, ignorance, and moral decay.
There is no atheist here who invites you into our forum.
What moral decay you are talking about when theists are the most immoral people in this world....you know that the churches you theists go are full of molesting priests????????
MattB
2018-01-11 00:57:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:41:51 -0800 (PST), "Hollis Brown Jr."
Post by Hollis Brown Jr.
Post by MattB
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
John the Baptist baptized infants? Where is that?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists avoid religion because it has too many rules that would cramp your style.You want to do whatever the fuck you want all the time without feeling bad about it.
Please do not call me a atheist.
How many different denominations are there all with different rules
and morals? How many people have you Christians killed just because a
man wouldn't kiss a ring or a women knew a little to much on how herbs
and healing and worked outside one of your Churches. You killed
people for helping others as Jesus said to do. PLEASE do not talk to
me about the greatness of scum sucking people like you.
You Christians don't even follow your own Bible and can't agree on
it's meaning and worse yet have just plain made shit up that it
doesn't support.
Hilarious. He calls an agnostic an atheist and you call a Jew a Christian.
He babbles about being a Jew even more often than you claim agnosticism. It boggles the mind that you could have missed it.
Kind of reminds me of Duke more than a Jew.
Post by Hollis Brown Jr.
Neither one of you read much of anything, do you? You're both in such a hurry to post your displeasure with atheists that you can't be bothered.
I have been called a theist by several atheist here on alt.atheism.
Your words would also apply to them.
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 23:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MattB
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
John the Baptist baptized infants? Where is that?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists avoid religion because it has too many rules that would cramp your style.You want to do whatever the fuck you want all the time without feeling bad about it.
Please do not call me a atheist.
My apologies.
Post by MattB
How many different denominations are there all with different rules
and morals?
In Judaism, there are only 3 denominations. All 3 follow the same rules for
moral behavior and have the same beliefs. They differ only in matters of ritual.


How many people have you Christians killed just because a
Post by MattB
man wouldn't kiss a ring or a women knew a little to much on how herbs
and healing and worked outside one of your Churches. You killed
people for helping others as Jesus said to do.
EVIDENCE????
Post by MattB
You Christians don't even follow your own Bible and can't agree on
it's meaning and worse yet have just plain made shit up that it
doesn't support.
I'm a Jew, not a Christian. Tell me what we have made up.
MattB
2018-01-11 01:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
John the Baptist baptized infants? Where is that?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists avoid religion because it has too many rules that would cramp your style.You want to do whatever the fuck you want all the time without feeling bad about it.
Please do not call me a atheist.
My apologies.
Post by MattB
How many different denominations are there all with different rules
and morals?
In Judaism, there are only 3 denominations. All 3 follow the same rules for
moral behavior and have the same beliefs. They differ only in matters of ritual.
Not really I spent time in Israel and Jews are far from being the same
as you claim. The orthodox Jews are total freaks, they say they don't
want peace and yet also say they don't want to join the army and
fight. Strange bunch. Some Jews treat women just fine other like a
fundie Christian or worse.
Post by v***@gmail.com
How many people have you Christians killed just because a
Post by MattB
man wouldn't kiss a ring or a women knew a little to much on how herbs
and healing and worked outside one of your Churches. You killed
people for helping others as Jesus said to do.
EVIDENCE????
Evidence that Christian killed people during the Crusades and
inquisition? You are kidding right?
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
You Christians don't even follow your own Bible and can't agree on
it's meaning and worse yet have just plain made shit up that it
doesn't support.
I'm a Jew, not a Christian. Tell me what we have made up.
To me anything in the Torah that can't be supported by historical
evidence or was first written about in a Pagan religion.
hypatiab7
2018-01-11 06:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Not sure why they ever started that it isn't even supported within the
Bible.
Bull. You never heard of John the Baptist?
Post by MattB
Post by Olrik
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
I don't like religion in general. To many Duke types.
I have my own theory on that. You atheists avoid religion because it has too many rules that would cramp your style.You want to do whatever the fuck you want all the time without feeling bad about it.
What theory? You've been saying this and lying about atheists since you
first started trolling in alt.atheism. This is nothing new with you. It
exists throughout your entire posting history. Anyone who cares can
check this out and see what a liar your are.
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 21:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
--
Only Islam is inherited.Infants born into a Jewish family inherit only the
Jewish ethnicity, not the religion. Christianity has no law regarding the
newborn.
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 22:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
WOW! You mean that 86% of the human race is mentally ill?
I don't think my Psychiatrist would agree with you. He's a Catholic.
Yap Honghor
2018-01-11 10:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Olrik
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist. Agnostics just don't know either
way and have a open mind.
A baby is born without knowledge and without beliefs. It has no notion
of anything at all, except physical needs. Shit, even gay babies will
heartily suck at these mighty boobs!
Then the indoctrination starts soon enough : I was baptized when I was
five days old.
Religions are sexually transmitted mental diseases.
WOW! You mean that 86% of the human race is mentally ill?
I don't think my Psychiatrist would agree with you. He's a Catholic.
Yes, all the believers have some kind of horrible disease or mental problem or brain problem which leads them to believe in a non-existent pixie.

You can't find any problem up in the head for the atheists!!!!
Cloud Hobbit
2018-01-10 23:39:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist.
More correctly, atheism is a nonbelief of any god or gods.

Agnostics just don't know either
Post by MattB
way and have a open mind.
MattB
2018-01-11 01:04:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 15:39:17 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by MattB
Post by Tim
Post by MattB
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:41:34 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Post by John Locke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
...babies are born innocent and free of religious infestation. They
are irreligious. Granted, they aren't cognizant of the term "atheist"
at birth, but in a short time, if they aren't subjected to the
egregious practice of religious brain washing, they'll soon learn the
meaning of the term.
Babies are born with no religion, therefore atheist.
Being inclined to supernaturalism doesn't apply until they are no longer babies.
The argument is flawed.
They are born agnostic not atheist. Not the same thing at all.
They are born both, since they are as yet incapable of holding beliefs, and a belief is a necessary condition of knowing something.
Atheism is the belief no god exist.
More correctly, atheism is a nonbelief of any god or gods.
I can except that.
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Agnostics just don't know either
Post by MattB
way and have a open mind.
Davej
2018-01-08 20:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
The author, Andrew Brown, also says that Trump is a liar.
Yap Honghor
2018-01-09 12:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
All babies are born atheists....let you be informed!!!!!
Rudy Canoza
2018-01-09 17:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
Complete hogwash. All babies are born as "weak" atheists: they have no
belief in any god. It's not a very well thought out position, though,
because babies don't have any beliefs at all, so noting that there's one
more belief they don't have isn't saying much.
Kevrob
2018-01-09 20:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
Complete hogwash. All babies are born as "weak" atheists: they have no
belief in any god. It's not a very well thought out position, though,
because babies don't have any beliefs at all, so noting that there's one
more belief they don't have isn't saying much.
Amazing! Ball is posting here, and not cross-posting!

Hey, Jonny: knock off the off-charter, off-topic
x-posting, in future, please. All sorts of trolls follow
you here, and it's a pain in the butt.

Thank you.

Still, if nobody programmed the little perishers - I was taught to
"say my prayers" by rote before I was sent to kindergarten - they'd
have a better chance to reach adulthood with open minds.

Kevin R
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-09 22:08:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
Complete hogwash. All babies are born as "weak" atheists: they have no
belief in any god. It's not a very well thought out position, though,
because babies don't have any beliefs at all, so noting that there's one
more belief they don't have isn't saying much.
My author proved his point. You didn't.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-01-10 23:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Rudy Canoza
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
Complete hogwash. All babies are born as "weak" atheists: they have no
belief in any god. It's not a very well thought out position, though,
because babies don't have any beliefs at all, so noting that there's one
more belief they don't have isn't saying much.
My author proved his point. You didn't.
The only thing proven is that you still don't know what proof is, or evidence, or lies.

Oh yeah, and you are an idiot and a liar.
Dreamer In Colore
2018-01-10 21:29:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
The original article is ridiculous.

The very first sentence is "Richard Dawkin's implication that babies
have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming
a default language or nationality."

Well, that's the point, isn't it? There are no default languages, or
nationalities. Babies don't innately know their ethnicity, and have to
be taught.

All babies are of course atheists, because they lack belief in gods.
Come to think of it, they lack belief in anything and act rather like
fat little sponges to soak up the influences around them.

Saying that a baby has a theistic stance is the same thing as saying a
baby is a stamp collector...

I've read some of the other posts, where it's stated that babies are
agnostic, and there is some truth to that, but it's a philosophical
position that means less than nothing to an entity whose sole focus is
staying alive.

It's not up to the baby to defend its atheism.... it's not making a
statement of faith. No, it's the original author of the article (Mr.
Andrew Brown) and the original poster (Mr Tandy) who have to provide
evidence that a baby has a theological position of any sort
whatsoever.

Does the baby have to defend its position of not collecting stamps?
--
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

"If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have
perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another."

Epicurus
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 21:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
The original article is ridiculous.
The very first sentence is "Richard Dawkin's implication that babies
have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming
a default language or nationality."
Well, that's the point, isn't it? There are no default languages, or
nationalities. Babies don't innately know their ethnicity, and have to
be taught.
All babies are of course atheists, because they lack belief in gods.
Come to think of it, they lack belief in anything and act rather like
fat little sponges to soak up the influences around them.
Saying that a baby has a theistic stance is the same thing as saying a
baby is a stamp collector...
I've read some of the other posts, where it's stated that babies are
agnostic, and there is some truth to that, but it's a philosophical
position that means less than nothing to an entity whose sole focus is
staying alive.
It's not up to the baby to defend its atheism.... it's not making a
statement of faith. No, it's the original author of the article (Mr.
Andrew Brown) and the original poster (Mr Tandy) who have to provide
evidence that a baby has a theological position of any sort
whatsoever.
Does the baby have to defend its position of not collecting stamps?
--
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306
"If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have
perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another."
Epicurus
You didn't read the whole article and did not understand the part you read.
There is no point in discussing it.
hypatiab7
2018-01-11 06:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
The original article is ridiculous.
The very first sentence is "Richard Dawkin's implication that babies
have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming
a default language or nationality."
Well, that's the point, isn't it? There are no default languages, or
nationalities. Babies don't innately know their ethnicity, and have to
be taught.
All babies are of course atheists, because they lack belief in gods.
Come to think of it, they lack belief in anything and act rather like
fat little sponges to soak up the influences around them.
Saying that a baby has a theistic stance is the same thing as saying a
baby is a stamp collector...
I've read some of the other posts, where it's stated that babies are
agnostic, and there is some truth to that, but it's a philosophical
position that means less than nothing to an entity whose sole focus is
staying alive.
It's not up to the baby to defend its atheism.... it's not making a
statement of faith. No, it's the original author of the article (Mr.
Andrew Brown) and the original poster (Mr Tandy) who have to provide
evidence that a baby has a theological position of any sort
whatsoever.
Does the baby have to defend its position of not collecting stamps?
You didn't read the whole article and did not understand the part you read.
There is no point in discussing it.
Why don't you explain why you posted this article and what you think it means?
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-10 22:46:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:29:33 -0500, Dreamer In Colore
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
The original article is ridiculous.
The very first sentence is "Richard Dawkin's implication that babies
have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming
a default language or nationality."
Well, that's the point, isn't it? There are no default languages, or
nationalities. Babies don't innately know their ethnicity, and have to
be taught.
All babies are of course atheists, because they lack belief in gods.
Come to think of it, they lack belief in anything and act rather like
fat little sponges to soak up the influences around them.
Saying that a baby has a theistic stance is the same thing as saying a
baby is a stamp collector...
I've read some of the other posts, where it's stated that babies are
agnostic, and there is some truth to that, but it's a philosophical
position that means less than nothing to an entity whose sole focus is
staying alive.
It's not up to the baby to defend its atheism.... it's not making a
statement of faith. No, it's the original author of the article (Mr.
Andrew Brown) and the original poster (Mr Tandy) who have to provide
evidence that a baby has a theological position of any sort
whatsoever.
Does the baby have to defend its position of not collecting stamps?
The problem is that none of the theists who post here, can grasp the
fact that atheists don't have the beliefs they arrogantly insist we
do.

They have their own "definition" of atheism which is a complete
misrepresentation - and no matter how often we correct them, they
arrogantly and nastily insist that they're correct and we aren't
telling the truth about ourselves.
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 23:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:29:33 -0500, Dreamer In Colore
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
The original article is ridiculous.
The very first sentence is "Richard Dawkin's implication that babies
have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming
a default language or nationality."
Well, that's the point, isn't it? There are no default languages, or
nationalities. Babies don't innately know their ethnicity, and have to
be taught.
All babies are of course atheists, because they lack belief in gods.
Come to think of it, they lack belief in anything and act rather like
fat little sponges to soak up the influences around them.
Saying that a baby has a theistic stance is the same thing as saying a
baby is a stamp collector...
I've read some of the other posts, where it's stated that babies are
agnostic, and there is some truth to that, but it's a philosophical
position that means less than nothing to an entity whose sole focus is
staying alive.
It's not up to the baby to defend its atheism.... it's not making a
statement of faith. No, it's the original author of the article (Mr.
Andrew Brown) and the original poster (Mr Tandy) who have to provide
evidence that a baby has a theological position of any sort
whatsoever.
Does the baby have to defend its position of not collecting stamps?
The problem is that none of the theists who post here, can grasp the
fact that atheists don't have the beliefs they arrogantly insist we
do.
I don't insist anything of the sort. The Oxford English Dictionary does that:

atheism
NOUN

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
They have their own "definition" of atheism which is a complete
misrepresentation - and no matter how often we correct them, they
arrogantly and nastily insist that they're correct and we aren't
telling the truth about ourselves.
You are a chronic liar, delusional and paranoid. Your corrections don't mean shit.
Alex W.
2018-01-11 00:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
The original article is ridiculous.
The very first sentence is "Richard Dawkin's implication that babies
have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming
a default language or nationality."
Well, that's the point, isn't it? There are no default languages, or
nationalities. Babies don't innately know their ethnicity, and have to
be taught.
To a theist, "default nationality" makes sense because a baby is
conferred a nationality by virtue of its birth just as they assume a
baby is conferred with a soul, and that nationality derives from its
parents just as membership in a religion comes down from the parents. A
birth certificate thus becomes the equivalent of baptism.

Interestingly, there is a genuine secular equivalent to this: babies are
deemed to be born with a default set of human rights.

As for "default language", that would be a topic for debate. While we
are not born with an innate "default" knowledge of English, German or
Kisuaheli, we *are* born with an innate sense of language itself. One
could argue that we are also born with an innate propensity for belief
in the supernatural, up to and including deities.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
All babies are of course atheists, because they lack belief in gods.
Come to think of it, they lack belief in anything and act rather like
fat little sponges to soak up the influences around them.
Saying that a baby has a theistic stance is the same thing as saying a
baby is a stamp collector...
Babies can no more say "I believe" than "I collect stamps" because they
lack a sense of self. They are quite incapable of grasping the "I".

To my mind, this would be an extension of the "nature vs nurture"
debate. Belief in the supernatural is so universal that one could
suppose it to be an innate urge or instinct. Even the adult rejection
of religion or belief in gods does not automatically inoculate one
against desires for spiritual matters. If we repudiate all gods but
instead subscribe to vague claptrap about the oneness of nature and
mother Gaia, or astrology, or the healing power of crystals -- are we
then not still believers?
Post by Dreamer In Colore
I've read some of the other posts, where it's stated that babies are
agnostic, and there is some truth to that, but it's a philosophical
position that means less than nothing to an entity whose sole focus is
staying alive.
To state that a baby is atheist is the same as stating that a brick is
atheist: correct in theory, but pointless and effectively meaningless.
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-11 00:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
The original article is ridiculous.
The very first sentence is "Richard Dawkin's implication that babies
have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming
a default language or nationality."
Well, that's the point, isn't it? There are no default languages, or
nationalities. Babies don't innately know their ethnicity, and have to
be taught.
To a theist, "default nationality" makes sense because a baby is
conferred a nationality by virtue of its birth just as they assume a
baby is conferred with a soul, and that nationality derives from its
parents just as membership in a religion comes down from the parents. A
birth certificate thus becomes the equivalent of baptism.
Interestingly, there is a genuine secular equivalent to this: babies are
deemed to be born with a default set of human rights.
As for "default language", that would be a topic for debate. While we
are not born with an innate "default" knowledge of English, German or
Kisuaheli, we *are* born with an innate sense of language itself. One
could argue that we are also born with an innate propensity for belief
in the supernatural, up to and including deities.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
All babies are of course atheists, because they lack belief in gods.
Come to think of it, they lack belief in anything and act rather like
fat little sponges to soak up the influences around them.
Saying that a baby has a theistic stance is the same thing as saying a
baby is a stamp collector...
Babies can no more say "I believe" than "I collect stamps" because they
lack a sense of self. They are quite incapable of grasping the "I".
To my mind, this would be an extension of the "nature vs nurture"
debate. Belief in the supernatural is so universal that one could
suppose it to be an innate urge or instinct. Even the adult rejection
of religion or belief in gods does not automatically inoculate one
against desires for spiritual matters. If we repudiate all gods but
instead subscribe to vague claptrap about the oneness of nature and
mother Gaia, or astrology, or the healing power of crystals -- are we
then not still believers?
Post by Dreamer In Colore
I've read some of the other posts, where it's stated that babies are
agnostic, and there is some truth to that, but it's a philosophical
position that means less than nothing to an entity whose sole focus is
staying alive.
To state that a baby is atheist is the same as stating that a brick is
atheist: correct in theory, but pointless and effectively meaningless.
I like that. You have been awarded the Tandofsky Good Sense Medalion.
Would you like the inscription in English or Russian?
Ted
2018-01-11 00:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
The original article is ridiculous.
The very first sentence is "Richard Dawkin's implication that babies
have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming
a default language or nationality."
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Well, that's the point, isn't it? There are no default languages, or
nationalities. Babies don't innately know their ethnicity, and have to
be taught.
To a theist, "default nationality" makes sense because a baby is
conferred a nationality by virtue of its birth just as they assume a baby
is conferred with a soul, and that nationality derives from its parents
just as membership in a religion comes down from the parents. A birth
certificate thus becomes the equivalent of baptism.
Interestingly, there is a genuine secular equivalent to this: babies are
deemed to be born with a default set of human rights.
As for "default language", that would be a topic for debate. While we
are not born with an innate "default" knowledge of English, German or
Kisuaheli, we *are* born with an innate sense of language itself. One
could argue that we are also born with an innate propensity for belief in
the supernatural, up to and including deities.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by Dreamer In Colore
All babies are of course atheists, because they lack belief in gods.
Come to think of it, they lack belief in anything and act rather like
fat little sponges to soak up the influences around them.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Saying that a baby has a theistic stance is the same thing as saying a
baby is a stamp collector...
Babies can no more say "I believe" than "I collect stamps" because they
lack a sense of self. They are quite incapable of grasping the "I".
To my mind, this would be an extension of the "nature vs nurture" debate.
Belief in the supernatural is so universal that one could suppose it to
be an innate urge or instinct. Even the adult rejection of religion or
belief in gods does not automatically inoculate one against desires for
spiritual matters. If we repudiate all gods but instead subscribe to
vague claptrap about the oneness of nature and mother Gaia, or astrology,
or the healing power of crystals -- are we then not still believers?
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by Dreamer In Colore
I've read some of the other posts, where it's stated that babies are
agnostic, and there is some truth to that, but it's a philosophical
position that means less than nothing to an entity whose sole focus is
staying alive.
To state that a baby is atheist is the same as stating that a brick is
atheist: correct in theory, but pointless and effectively meaningless.
You're always well worth reading, Alex. Thanks.
Kevrob
2018-01-11 00:38:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...................................... If we repudiate all gods but
instead subscribe to vague claptrap about the oneness of nature and
mother Gaia, or astrology, or the healing power of crystals -- are we
then not still believers?
Not every atheist is a skeptic, though I am, and if asked
would advise that route for others.

Kevin R
Siri Cruise
2018-01-11 04:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Babies can no more say "I believe" than "I collect stamps" because they
lack a sense of self. They are quite incapable of grasping the "I".
Babies are pantheists.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed
Kevrob
2018-01-11 04:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by Alex W.
Babies can no more say "I believe" than "I collect stamps" because they
lack a sense of self. They are quite incapable of grasping the "I".
Babies are pantheists.
Nah, they believe in diapers, not panths. :)

Kevin R
Olrik
2018-01-11 04:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
The original article is ridiculous.
The very first sentence is "Richard Dawkin's implication that babies
have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming
a default language or nationality."
Well, that's the point, isn't it? There are no default languages, or
nationalities. Babies don't innately know their ethnicity, and have to
be taught.
To a theist, "default nationality" makes sense because a baby is
conferred a nationality by virtue of its birth just as they assume a
baby is conferred with a soul, and that nationality derives from its
parents just as membership in a religion comes down from the parents.  A
birth certificate thus becomes the equivalent of baptism.
Interestingly, there is a genuine secular equivalent to this: babies are
deemed to be born with a default set of human rights.
As for "default language", that would be a topic for debate.  While we
are not born with an innate "default" knowledge of English, German or
Kisuaheli, we *are* born with an innate sense of language itself.  One
could argue that we are also born with an innate propensity for belief
in the supernatural, up to and including deities.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
All babies are of course atheists, because they lack belief in gods.
Come to think of it, they lack belief in anything and act rather like
fat little sponges to soak up the influences around them.
Saying that a baby has a theistic stance is the same thing as saying a
baby is a stamp collector...
Babies can no more say "I believe" than "I collect stamps" because they
lack a sense of self.  They are quite incapable of grasping the "I".
To my mind, this would be an extension of the "nature vs nurture"
debate.  Belief in the supernatural is so universal that one could
suppose it to be an innate urge or instinct.  Even the adult rejection
of religion or belief in gods does not automatically inoculate one
against desires for spiritual matters.  If we repudiate all gods but
instead subscribe to vague claptrap about the oneness of nature and
mother Gaia, or astrology, or the healing power of crystals -- are we
then not still believers?
Post by Dreamer In Colore
I've read some of the other posts, where it's stated that babies are
agnostic, and there is some truth to that, but it's a philosophical
position that means less than nothing to an entity whose sole focus is
staying alive.
To state that a baby is atheist is the same as stating that a brick is
atheist: correct in theory, but pointless and effectively meaningless.
A baby is born without knowledge nor beliefs, just urges to survive the
moment, seek food and some innate characteristics. The rest is taught
and learned.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Christopher A. Lee
2018-01-11 05:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Olrik
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
The original article is ridiculous.
The very first sentence is "Richard Dawkin's implication that babies
have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming
a default language or nationality."
Well, that's the point, isn't it? There are no default languages, or
nationalities. Babies don't innately know their ethnicity, and have to
be taught.
To a theist, "default nationality" makes sense because a baby is
conferred a nationality by virtue of its birth just as they assume a
baby is conferred with a soul, and that nationality derives from its
parents just as membership in a religion comes down from the parents.  A
birth certificate thus becomes the equivalent of baptism.
Interestingly, there is a genuine secular equivalent to this: babies are
deemed to be born with a default set of human rights.
As for "default language", that would be a topic for debate.  While we
are not born with an innate "default" knowledge of English, German or
Kisuaheli, we *are* born with an innate sense of language itself.  One
could argue that we are also born with an innate propensity for belief
in the supernatural, up to and including deities.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
All babies are of course atheists, because they lack belief in gods.
Come to think of it, they lack belief in anything and act rather like
fat little sponges to soak up the influences around them.
Saying that a baby has a theistic stance is the same thing as saying a
baby is a stamp collector...
Babies can no more say "I believe" than "I collect stamps" because they
lack a sense of self.  They are quite incapable of grasping the "I".
To my mind, this would be an extension of the "nature vs nurture"
debate.  Belief in the supernatural is so universal that one could
suppose it to be an innate urge or instinct.  Even the adult rejection
of religion or belief in gods does not automatically inoculate one
against desires for spiritual matters.  If we repudiate all gods but
instead subscribe to vague claptrap about the oneness of nature and
mother Gaia, or astrology, or the healing power of crystals -- are we
then not still believers?
Post by Dreamer In Colore
I've read some of the other posts, where it's stated that babies are
agnostic, and there is some truth to that, but it's a philosophical
position that means less than nothing to an entity whose sole focus is
staying alive.
To state that a baby is atheist is the same as stating that a brick is
atheist: correct in theory, but pointless and effectively meaningless.
No. They are trivially atheist. Which is important to realise when it
comes to people who were never theist in the first place.
Post by Olrik
A baby is born without knowledge nor beliefs, just urges to survive the
moment, seek food and some innate characteristics. The rest is taught
and learned.
And in spite of what Alex dismisses when it is pointed out, those of
us who weren't taught to be theist remain in exactly the same state of
not having that belief that we were born with.

The only difference before and after we hear the god concept for the
first time, is that we became aware that there are people called
theists who believe something ridiculous which we don't.
Dreamer In Colore
2018-01-11 04:59:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
The original article is ridiculous.
The very first sentence is "Richard Dawkin's implication that babies
have a default theological position of atheism is as silly as assuming
a default language or nationality."
Well, that's the point, isn't it? There are no default languages, or
nationalities. Babies don't innately know their ethnicity, and have to
be taught.
To a theist, "default nationality" makes sense because a baby is
conferred a nationality by virtue of its birth just as they assume a
baby is conferred with a soul, and that nationality derives from its
parents just as membership in a religion comes down from the parents. A
birth certificate thus becomes the equivalent of baptism.
Interestingly, there is a genuine secular equivalent to this: babies are
deemed to be born with a default set of human rights.
I'm not at all convinced of that. I'm lucky to live in a reasonable
country, where a fair number of human rights are enshrined in the
constitution. However, there are a number of places in the world where
babies don't.

It would be nice if this was a universal thing, of course. I think
certain things should absolutely be a default: clean water, safe food,
secular education, universal health care... but the degree of conflict
over these tells the cynic in me something else.
Post by Alex W.
As for "default language", that would be a topic for debate. While we
are not born with an innate "default" knowledge of English, German or
Kisuaheli, we *are* born with an innate sense of language itself. One
could argue that we are also born with an innate propensity for belief
in the supernatural, up to and including deities.
Mr W., you bring up some absolutely worthwhile topics. I'd like to
propose a slightly different take, if I may. We're born with an innate
propensity to use our imaginations, so we wholesale invent things to
explain things around us. The rational ones hold these beliefs until
better explanations come along.

Most cultures have invented deities for various reasons; I think the
need for this will decrease over time because our ability to explain
things in more naturalistic terms has consistently increased over the
same period.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
All babies are of course atheists, because they lack belief in gods.
Come to think of it, they lack belief in anything and act rather like
fat little sponges to soak up the influences around them.
Saying that a baby has a theistic stance is the same thing as saying a
baby is a stamp collector...
Babies can no more say "I believe" than "I collect stamps" because they
lack a sense of self. They are quite incapable of grasping the "I".
To my mind, this would be an extension of the "nature vs nurture"
debate. Belief in the supernatural is so universal that one could
suppose it to be an innate urge or instinct. Even the adult rejection
of religion or belief in gods does not automatically inoculate one
against desires for spiritual matters. If we repudiate all gods but
instead subscribe to vague claptrap about the oneness of nature and
mother Gaia, or astrology, or the healing power of crystals -- are we
then not still believers?
Belief in the supernatural is easy, and we're primarily a lazy
species. People grasp at all kinds of things to make themselves feel
better, and it's a lot harder to fight cognitive dissonance than it is
to suckle at the glass teat.
Post by Alex W.
Post by Dreamer In Colore
I've read some of the other posts, where it's stated that babies are
agnostic, and there is some truth to that, but it's a philosophical
position that means less than nothing to an entity whose sole focus is
staying alive.
To state that a baby is atheist is the same as stating that a brick is
atheist: correct in theory, but pointless and effectively meaningless.
The only reason to state that a baby is atheist is to counter the
dangerous notion that a baby is a theist. One states these things with
conviction because the prevailing counter-thought should be changed.

It's only meaningless to you because you're a creature of rationality;
OF COURSE babies are atheist. For you, and any other rationalist, this
is axiomatic.
--
Cheers,
Dreamer
AA 2306

"If God listened to the prayers of men, all men would quickly have
perished: for they are forever praying for evil against one another."

Epicurus
duke
2018-01-10 23:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
Exactly. Atheism is a decision.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 23:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
Exactly. Atheism is a decision.
It's escapism. They want freedom from rules.
Teresita
2018-01-11 01:29:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by duke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
Exactly. Atheism is a decision.
It's escapism. They want freedom from rules.
Some people give up bacon for religious reasons. Other people give up
religion for bacon reasons.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Yap Honghor
2018-01-11 10:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by duke
Post by v***@gmail.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
Exactly. Atheism is a decision.
It's escapism. They want freedom from rules.
Moron, do you know any nation in this world has thousands of rules?
You want your easy way by just obeying 10 rules?????

You need to go back to the Bronze age, ain't fit for the 21st century....
Loading...