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
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/atheist-baby-richard-dawkins-babies-atheism
John Locke
2018-01-07 23:44:52 UTC
Permalink
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
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
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
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
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
Cloud Hobbit
2018-01-08 20:41:34 UTC
Permalink
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
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
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
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
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
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.
MattB
2018-01-09 20:33:32 UTC
Permalink
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
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
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.

Davej
2018-01-08 20:00:15 UTC
Permalink
[...]
The author, Andrew Brown, also says that Trump is a liar.
Yap Honghor
2018-01-09 12:21:33 UTC
Permalink
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
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
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
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.
Loading...