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
hypatiab7
2018-01-10 02:53:42 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?
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
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.
Yap Honghor
2018-01-10 13:34:08 UTC
Permalink
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
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.
Alex W.
2018-01-10 00:03:28 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.
"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
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
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.
Kevrob
2018-01-10 00:04:24 UTC
Permalink
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
Olrik
2018-01-10 04:40:00 UTC
Permalink
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
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
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.
v***@gmail.com
2018-01-10 21:54:54 UTC
Permalink
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
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.
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.
Dreamer In Colore
2018-01-10 21:29:33 UTC
Permalink
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
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.
Loading...