Are Atheists Born Or Made?

Gosai
Theist
Posts: 11
Joined: 2007-05-01
User is offlineOffline
Are Atheists Born Or Made?

A friend of mine once said that everyone is born an atheist. And I replied that, "How do you know, you can't remember that far back."

This is my first quote on this forum and I would like to know your thoughts. Is atheism a natural tendency or is belief in something/someone beyond the forces of the world a natural tendency? In a single word what is the core difference between an atheist and a theist?

Cheers to AllCool


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Lynette1977 wrote: Gosai

Lynette1977 wrote:
Gosai wrote:

A friend of mine once said that everyone is born an atheist. And I replied that, "How do you know, you can't remember that far back."

This is my first quote on this forum and I would like to know your thoughts. Is atheism a natural tendency or is belief in something/someone beyond the forces of the world a natural tendency? In a single word what is the core difference between an atheist and a theist?

Cheers to AllCool

 

If you were born in a place where religion (or anywhere such an ideology that a 'creator' exists) did not exist, chances are, you wouldn't have a god to believe in. Because the earth exists as it would if there WERE no creator, it's safe to say that if there weren't man made ideology, yes, we would all be without religion.

One word to describe the difference between atheists and theists? Comprehension. People who are theist tend to comprehend things in a profoundly different manner than people who are not. If you were taught how to think and analyze at a young age and then were introduced to something that defied all logic and means of comprehension you had been taught, something that in it's very essense threw out every method of thinking and analytical capabilities you had honed to perfection all of those years and one day you are asked to forget it all and just dive right in without question...it would seem pretty absurd to believe in something that could never be proven, wouldn't it? Atheists are those who were either born without religion or who were able to teach themselves to comprehend properly. I myself questioned at a young age, was stiffled by theists then found through a philosophy course on God, ironically, how to accurately question and analyize. It's all been uphill from there.

Most theists were taught from an early age that some things are not to be questioned or to be answered, they just "are." But people who were taught to question and analyize ideas typically are not fooled by religion. If someone can not understand or comprehend how something can exist without some unknown creature creating it...chances are...they haven't yet done enough analyzing yet.

Theists comprehend differently because they were programmed to think in a manner counterproductive to the human mind. We are meant to ask questions and if an answer is not good enough we should keep seeking answers.

The reason that science never has been interested in the idea of "god" is because everything on this earth exists as can be explained and as it would had a creator not existed as humans claimed once did. If it can't be explained by science it stands to reason that it shouldn't be explained by non-science.

It's all in the method of comprehension.

I agree with everything that Lynette has said here, though I (obviously) disagree with her conclusions.  Atheists and theists have a profoundly different way of seeing the evidence.

I have heard (unverified: if this is untrue or has been refuted or never happened then please don't flame me!) that we have found hemoglobin in a Tyrannosaurs Rex skull.  Now, under the assumption that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, such a find would be absolutely impossible.  The creation scientist is going to look at this as evidence that dinosaurs and humans could have coexisted, and thus use this as support for a 6,000 year old earth.

The evolutionist/atheist is going to want to hold off on making any conclusion at all on this!  See, this would destroy the lens through which he percieves the world, bolster the creationist case, and generally look bad for evolution itself because of the millions of years that such a theory requires.

The creationist is ready to announce that this is proof of a 6,000 year old earth.  The evolutionist wants further review and study, to find out how that is possible.

Who's right?  I don't know, I don't care.  The point is that we have a theist reading the evidence one way, and an atheist reading the evidence another way.  A good healthy debate can and should result from this so that we can get to the truth of the matter.

The ultimate, on-topic point to all of this is: I disagree with the notion that atheism is a position of ignorance.  It is a position that is as carefully researched and as faithfully believed as my own theistic position.  It is a careful consideration of the evidence as the individual sees it point.  I see the same evidence point a different way.

Is there a theistic reason for this?  YES!  Check John 6:44 and Acts 13:42: the Word of God isn't meant for everyone, but only for those God intends it.  Better yet, look at Matthew 7:13-14!  Not only is the gospel message not for everyone, but only a very few will ever respond to God's call.

Now I'm off topic again, and I'll shut up. 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Cory T

BGH wrote:

Cory T wrote:
No, just using the RRS. He used the most unlikely people at the least likely times. That seems to be a persistent theme throughout that book you guys hate so much.

What? I don't hate mythology! LOL.

Heavenly Father,

Please forgive your humble servant for thinking that this comment was stinkin' hilarious.  I pray your blessings on this board and my time spent here in Jesus' name,

AMEN. 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: I have heard

Cory T wrote:

I have heard (unverified: if this is untrue or has been refuted or never happened then please don't flame me!) that we have found hemoglobin in a Tyrannosaurs Rex skull.  Now, under the assumption that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, such a find would be absolutely impossible.  The creation scientist is going to look at this as evidence that dinosaurs and humans could have coexisted, and thus use this as support for a 6,000 year old earth.

The evolutionist/atheist is going to want to hold off on making any conclusion at all on this!  See, this would destroy the lens through which he percieves the world, bolster the creationist case, and generally look bad for evolution itself because of the millions of years that such a theory requires.

The creationist is ready to announce that this is proof of a 6,000 year old earth.  The evolutionist wants further review and study, to find out how that is possible.

Who's right?  I don't know, I don't care.  The point is that we have a theist reading the evidence one way, and an atheist reading the evidence another way.  A good healthy debate can and should result from this so that we can get to the truth of the matter.

The ultimate, on-topic point to all of this is: I disagree with the notion that atheism is a position of ignorance.  It is a position that is as carefully researched and as faithfully believed as my own theistic position.  It is a careful consideration of the evidence as the individual sees it point.  I see the same evidence point a different way. 

I agree with a lot of what you said here, but I too don't agree with your conclusions.  You said the atheist/evolutionist would want to furthur study.  Of course!  If this hemogoblin was actually found then infact one of the theories is incorrect and it would require lots of further studies.  You assume that finding hemoglobin would indicate that dinosaurs lived same time as man, but the reason could be something completely different.  It could mean that we are able to detect older genetic material then we orignally thought.  Or it could mean that at some point much more recently another animal shed blood in that skull.  You see, atheists/evoluntionist/scientists want furthur study to find the truth, and if we are proven wrong on a theory, we ACCEPT and admit that we were wrong.  We want the truth and only the truth.  Creationist/theists on the other hand would jump to the quickest conclusion that benifits their ideas and beliefs and try to use the exact same evidence they would refuse to accept if it doesn't fit their needs.  And when their theories are proven wrong, instead of accept and admit it, they refuse to and say that the science must be wrong and ignore it.  As far as a debate, that can be really hard when someone is thinking irrationally and refuses all evidence except what they want to use.


Sam.Udra
Posts: 2
Joined: 2007-05-01
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Sam.Udra

todangst wrote:
Sam.Udra wrote:

You say, “we are born with the ability to project out anthropomorphic expectations onto the universe. A child can consider a piece of lint, flowing across the floor, as something intentional, sentient... we can call this animism, although I think it's more correct to call it anthropomorphic-projectionism. So I'd say that a child has the ability to create, on their own, a primitive 'weather god' like sense of polytheism/theism....”

Are you saying this is an innate, inherent ability or characteristic of the homo sapien?

Yes. Well, it's not my idea, it comes from the ancient Greek philosophers:


"Man is the measure of all things" - Protagoras

And from more modern philosophy too, such as Thomas Hobbes (if memory serves).

Basically the point is that we begin by knowing ourselves, and we procede by projecting out what we know (ourselves) onto the world.... we learn through analogy, and the basic analogy is from the unknown to ourselves. So it's no wonder that our first 'science' was to create gods as the cause of the workings of nature:

Boom! Lightning! That's scary! Being able to predict it or control it or at least understand it would be helpful!

Wait... when I get angry, I might throw something and make a lot of noise! So that's it! There's a really big guy, like me, who gets mad, and throws things!

That said, one could say that the modern computer is also based on the same general tendency to project... after all, what is a computer if not an attempt to recreate our own brains?

Quote:

You call it “anthropomorphic-projectionism”. Why would the human not automatically project a more scientific materially rational view of his surroundings instead of projecting mysticism?

Ah, I'm so glad I came up with the example of a computer above, as it points to a more comprehensive view of my idea... anthropomorphic-projection is not inherently mystic or non-scientific, or non-rational, although, developmentally, it begins that way.

I think the best way to unfold my idea is to look at Comte's conceptualization of the development of man: We begin through a primitive mysticism: a theological stage, we then move towards a 'philosphical' or metaphysical stage, and then end up at a scientific stage. All are 'human' stage and we may project out any of these stages onto the universe.

Look at how we viewed the universe through history:

First, the universe was our country. Then, our planet, at the center, with a sun flying around it each day.

Then our universe became a solar system, a galaxy, and ....

Eventually, we now have (possibly) a multiverse.

Notice how the universe 'got bigger' as we ourselves matured and were better able to handle 'being smaller'... as we as a species grew in confidence, our universe grew larger.

I'm not saying that anthropomorphic-projection is the sole cause of this change... and, furthermore, the process is interactive, but I do think it played a part.

Quote:

As the human evolves will we leave behind “anthropomorphic-projectionism”.

I don't think we can escape ourselves, nor should we want to.... at best, we can recognize the limit (and philosophers have recognized it for eons) and accept that it is always a limit on what we can really know... The only way to avoid the problem is to leap outside of ourselves and become nothing.... i.e. avoid having any nature at all.... which of course is impossible.

 

Oh yes of course Pratagoras the great Phenomenologist and teacher of virtue who concluded he could not verify the existence or non-existence of the gods.

So... if we cannot escape ourselves or our inherent nature to engage in anthropomorphic-projectionism then wouldn't it be prudent to delve into the nature of consciousness and begin analyzing why we are attracted in one way and not the other? Why we are not evolving to the other side when our rational mind and intelligence dismisses mysticism?

If we are to accept secular humanism as an evolution of consciousness giving up old and useless thought patterns and moving towards an enlightened time where rationalism and logic will become the norm and if those in the leading sciences who have so much influence on society and daily life lean toward the secular humanistic world views, which we all know most do, then why is there so much disturbance in the world today? Why have the problems not lessened in the world? Why are things not getting better? If we are evolving in the right direction why does the world situation not reflect this?

Do you believe the human race is continuing to evolve or are we beginning to see a devolution of homo sapiens? Where is the evidence we are evolving in the right direction?


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote:I agree with

Cory T wrote:
I agree with everything that Lynette has said here, though I (obviously) disagree with her conclusions.  Atheists and theists have a profoundly different way of seeing the evidence.

The way this atheist interprets the evidence of what you have to say is that theists and atheists are SO different that we may as well be considered different species. Borders on racism. I know it's unintentional, but this kind of latent (and sometimes not so latent) elitism is inherent in religious ideology.

Quote:
I have heard (unverified: if this is untrue or has been refuted or never happened then please don't flame me!) that we have found hemoglobin in a Tyrannosaurs Rex skull.  Now, under the assumption that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, such a find would be absolutely impossible.  The creation scientist is going to look at this as evidence that dinosaurs and humans could have coexisted, and thus use this as support for a 6,000 year old earth.

The evolutionist/atheist is going to want to hold off on making any conclusion at all on this!  See, this would destroy the lens through which he percieves the world, bolster the creationist case, and generally look bad for evolution itself because of the millions of years that such a theory requires.

Yet again your subtle disdain for atheists or AT BEST ignorance of the atheist position rears its ugly head. No one of a properly scientific mind would deny evidence JUST BECAUSE it would support a position he finds distasteful or conflicts with what he already thinks. In fact, doing so in either case would be decidely unscientific. You are attributing sinister ulterior motives where none exist, thus my comment about your disdain for atheists.

Quote:
The creationist is ready to announce that this is proof of a 6,000 year old earth.  The evolutionist wants further review and study, to find out how that is possible.
This is a difference. People who think they can invent reality however they want through their own inflated egos leap to conclusions whenever there is the slightest whif of support for their preferred position whereas the scientifically minded will demand internal sense, physical theory and repeated testing prior to making positive assertions...which even then are left open to revision, refinement or even eventual total rejection.

Quote:
Who's right?  I don't know, I don't care.  The point is that we have a theist reading the evidence one way, and an atheist reading the evidence another way.
False. What we have in this case is someone ignorign evidence on one side and someone accounting for the evidence on the other.
Quote:
A good healthy debate can and should result from this so that we can get to the truth of the matter.
While this sounds reasonable enough, it's not really. The tacit assumption seems to be that all positions are equal until we hash them out. No way. I can come up with a dozen times when this is completely wrong. But you seem smart enough to me to come up with your own examples.

Quote:
The ultimate, on-topic point to all of this is: I disagree with the notion that atheism is a position of ignorance.  It is a position that is as carefully researched and as faithfully believed as my own theistic position.  It is a careful consideration of the evidence as the individual sees it point.  I see the same evidence point a different way.

I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but I agree. Maybe the difference is the use of a capital letter. Everyone is born atheist, but someone like me is an Atheist who has arrived at the position through a lifetime of experience and study.

Quote:
Is there a theistic reason for this?  YES!  Check John 6:44 and Acts 13:42: the Word of God isn't meant for everyone, but only for those God intends it.  Better yet, look at Matthew 7:13-14!  Not only is the gospel message not for everyone, but only a very few will ever respond to God's call.
The sad part is that you think quoting some book counts as a "reason" for anything. As to my assertions of elitism on your part, you have just confirmed it as integral to your faith.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
kmisho wrote:Cory T

kmisho wrote:

Cory T wrote:

The ultimate, on-topic point to all of this is: I disagree with the notion that atheism is a position of ignorance.  It is a position that is as carefully researched and as faithfully believed as my own theistic position.  It is a careful consideration of the evidence as the individual sees it point.  I see the same evidence point a different way.

I don't know if you saw my earlier post, but I agree. Maybe the difference is the use of a capital letter. Everyone is born atheist, but someone like me is an Atheist who has arrived at the position through a lifetime of experience and study.

Never having held a god belief, I look at this somewhat differently. My atheism is due to ignorance as I am completely ignorant of any valid reason to believe in a god or even any real grasp of what this god thing is supposed to be. Though I may have read other's opinions on why they believe there to be a god and the text that is supposed to be the account of the Christian's god interacting with humankind, I never found reason to form such a belief and therefor never had to "arrive" at atheism through study as there has never been a time when I was not an atheist. In other words, I'm still an atheist in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons as when I was born.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Arletta wrote: I agree

Arletta wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you said here, but I too don't agree with your conclusions. You said the atheist/evolutionist would want to furthur study. Of course! If this hemogoblin was actually found then infact one of the theories is incorrect and it would require lots of further studies. You assume that finding hemoglobin would indicate that dinosaurs lived same time as man, but the reason could be something completely different. It could mean that we are able to detect older genetic material then we orignally thought. Or it could mean that at some point much more recently another animal shed blood in that skull. You see, atheists/evoluntionist/scientists want furthur study to find the truth, and if we are proven wrong on a theory, we ACCEPT and admit that we were wrong. We want the truth and only the truth. Creationist/theists on the other hand would jump to the quickest conclusion that benifits their ideas and beliefs and try to use the exact same evidence they would refuse to accept if it doesn't fit their needs. And when their theories are proven wrong, instead of accept and admit it, they refuse to and say that the science must be wrong and ignore it. As far as a debate, that can be really hard when someone is thinking irrationally and refuses all evidence except what they want to use.

I was actually trying to make the same point you did.

If such a discovery were made, somebody was wrong previously, and the creationist IS the first to jump and say that it is evidence of his position without studying the other possibilities.  I've always hated that.

Sorry for not being clearer!

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, uh, er ...... by this

Well, uh, er ...... by this point I usually have to post a big ol' warning that this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum.  Then I have to follow up and remind everyone not to sling insults or call each other names.

Guess I don't have to do that this time.  Laughing

Carry on!

(Glad you're back Cory T!) 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Well, uh, er

Susan wrote:

Well, uh, er ...... by this point I usually have to post a big ol' warning that this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum. Then I have to follow up and remind everyone not to sling insults or call each other names.

Guess I don't have to do that this time. Laughing

Carry on!

(Glad you're back Cory T!)

 

Aww, Susan!  You caught me right before I was going to call all of the evolutionists in this forum "half-evolved Neanderthals with less than simian intellect."  Dammit!  I'll have to save that one for my district manager when I quit BK.

It's good to be back, although that comment seems strange even when I type it.  A Christian who enjoys an atheist forum.  What IS this world coming to?

It's probably because I just got blasted by a fellow Christian because I think Jack Chick is a complete dingus, and you guys have a gentler way of disagreeing with me.  Sad, isn't it?

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: Sad, isn't

Cory T wrote:

Sad, isn't it?

Not from my perspective. You have always been an honest debater and that is why people like having you here. it doesn't matter that we disagree, what matters is you are willing to state your beliefs and admit there may another way of looking at things. Were not going to kill you for having an differing view, were just going to kill the argument with logic and reason. LOL!

It is REALLY good to have you back, I wish I could say the same for other theists who have come back recently. 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: Aww, Susan!

Cory T wrote:

Aww, Susan! You caught me right before I was going to call all of the evolutionists in this forum "half-evolved Neanderthals with less than simian intellect." Dammit! I'll have to save that one for my district manager when I quit BK.

This is too funny to "mod out" of the post.  (Especially since it was said in jest.)

Who wudda thunk that it would be the theist who did the cussing on the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum?!?  Not to mention, I'm letting him get away with it!  Laughing

By the way, Cory, it's not the evolutionists that are "half-evolved Neanderthals with less than simian intellect".  It's the Westboro Baptist Church.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: If such a

Cory T wrote:

If such a discovery were made, somebody was wrong previously, and the creationist IS the first to jump and say that it is evidence of his position without studying the other possibilities.  I've always hated that.

I'm really glad you said that because that demonstrates the one thing I absolutely can not comprehend about most theists.  If you can see for yourself how the creationists jump to such a HUGE conclusion without any real study while the evolutionists want to study till they're as sure as they can possibly be, why can't you see that the creationists do that with EVERYTHING.  Why would you ever even consider taking the word of people who treat evidence and study as if it's the devil incarnate?  The church through out history has tried to stifle scientific study and advancement, instead demanding that you take their word for it.  It's no longer a death sentence to question those very words, we're finally free to break the chains of ignorance the church has thrust upon us for millenium.  And yet you continue to allow the wool to be pulled over your eyes.  It has to be a conscious decision to reject such overwhelming evidence to believe in so little.  Please, I've studied so many religions trying to understand that one thing.  Tell me how you're able to do it?


Mjolnin
Theist
Posts: 143
Joined: 2007-04-20
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: Lynette1977

Cory T wrote:
Lynette1977 wrote:
Gosai wrote:

A friend of mine once said that everyone is born an atheist. And I replied that, "How do you know, you can't remember that far back."

Cory T wrote:

Who's right?  I don't know, I don't care.  The point is that we have a theist reading the evidence one way, and an atheist reading the evidence another way.  A good healthy debate can and should result from this so that we can get to the truth of the matter.

I like this stance. A healthy debate is always interesting and it is always good to see how others interprit the facts. I haven't had the time to investigate the author or the studies but I found this article and found it interesting and on topic.

The Times Magazine Published on March 4, 2007 an article written by Robin Henig. Called “Darin’s God.” A  person referenced is Scott Atran who called God: “belief in hope beyond reason”The article suggests a natural cognitive growth occurs as early as 15 months to which hard wires our brain for the belief in something supernatural. This article enters into the debate taking place among the scientists studying the evolution of religion (not really for sure what that is), not between science and religion but within science itself. These scholars tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history. What they disagree about is why a tendency to believe evolved, whether it was because belief itself was adaptive or because it was just an evolutionary byproduct.This means our brains are primed for it, ready to presume the presence of God when such presence confounds logic. “There seems an inherent human drive to believe in something transcendent, unfathomable and otherworldly, something beyond the reach or understanding of science.”In short, are we hard-wired to believe in God? And if we are, how and why did that happen?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"By the way, Cory, it's not

"By the way, Cory, it's not the evolutionists that are "half-evolved Neanderthals with less than simian intellect". It's the Westboro Baptist Church."

I think some neanderthal skeletons are rolling in their graves right about now...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


netsui
netsui's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps agnostic?

I've read all of the comments on this thread. From what I have read, everyone is trying to figure out if a baby is born as an atheist, or not born as an atheist.

So, just to pose the question for the sake of argument... Couldn't a baby be born as an agnostic?

 If we assume that a new baby has no evidence for, or against god, then it unable to know if a god exists or not. There is no information to compare and analyse. I sort of feel like I'm missing something here.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The baby would have to know

The baby would have to know of the concept of a god before it could even consider the question of whether one exists. To a baby, mom and dad are god.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Actually atheists are Made.

Actually atheists are Made. Yes, we are born without the knowledge of the concenpt of God. Therefore, we cannot be non-something we have not idea about. Atheists are only atheists once they learn about the concept of God and realize what it is a bunch of B.S.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


d_focil
Theist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I'd like to ask something

I'd like to ask something about being made into an Athiest.

From what I have observed many people that hold strong athiest positions, and actively try and pursuade others to stop believing often are raised in very fundamentalist families and taught at fundamentalist schools. In this way they are made because of the simple minded and uncritical nature of most religious instituions.

Every religios system has a rich and diverse set o ideas contained within it, there is officially sanctioned debate. This goes for Christians, Hindus, and Moslems. You have a multitude of positions within Catholic doctrine on even fundamental issues such as the relative divinity of Jesus.

The promblem is that simple minded folk in all belief systems tend to ignore the tough questions and critical viewpoints and try to repress them. Thsi goes for the Christian as well as the Communist. Its a problem of dogma and ideology that prevents inquisitive minds from tackling the bigger issues.

As a result of this problem those with a higher capacity to question and absorb subtlety are marginalized to the point that the completly reject all of the beliefs they were originally taught. Instead of reconciling faith and reason they abandon faith.

To illustrate this point furhter, you can see the same reaction with anyone bombarded with strict ideological conditioning. Many Cubans who come to the U.S are completely opposed to all socialist measures, and are strict capitalists. They reject everything found in Marxist thoght even the valid points it makes cocerning our system.

This is not because of a true philosophical inquiry but because they got so sick of having communist propaganda forced down their throats that now everything asocciated with it is rejected.

See any parallels?


DrStrangelove
DrStrangelove's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
pariahjane wrote: We're all

pariahjane wrote:
We're all born atheist.  We don't know about the concept of god until we are taught it. 

...taught it... or create it.
I should start a cult like that L Ron Hubbard dude-- he made mad-ass money.

Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual character


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Cory T

Susan wrote:
Cory T wrote:

Aww, Susan! You caught me right before I was going to call all of the evolutionists in this forum "half-evolved Neanderthals with less than simian intellect." Dammit! I'll have to save that one for my district manager when I quit BK.

This is too funny to "mod out" of the post. (Especially since it was said in jest.)

Who wudda thunk that it would be the theist who did the cussing on the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum?!? Not to mention, I'm letting him get away with it! Laughing

By the way, Cory, it's not the evolutionists that are "half-evolved Neanderthals with less than simian intellect". It's the Westboro Baptist Church.

I can't believe I just found that now... that's too funny.  It's good that my humor is appreciated.  I'm pretty much up for any Westboro Baptist Church joke.  Those guys bring it on themselves. 

Arletta wrote:
I'm really glad you said that because that demonstrates the one thing I absolutely can not comprehend about most theists.  If you can see for yourself how the creationists jump to such a HUGE conclusion without any real study while the evolutionists want to study till they're as sure as they can possibly be, why can't you see that the creationists do that with EVERYTHING.  Why would you ever even consider taking the word of people who treat evidence and study as if it's the devil incarnate?  The church through out history has tried to stifle scientific study and advancement, instead demanding that you take their word for it.  It's no longer a death sentence to question those very words, we're finally free to break the chains of ignorance the church has thrust upon us for millenium.  And yet you continue to allow the wool to be pulled over your eyes.  It has to be a conscious decision to reject such overwhelming evidence to believe in so little.  Please, I've studied so many religions trying to understand that one thing.  Tell me how you're able to do it?

I don't believe the wool has been pulled over my eyes.  I look at the order in creation, and believe that that order was enforced by Someone Very Intelligent.  I have yet to see a plausible mechanism by which one species would change wholesale into another species.  I don't believe that adding a timespan of millions of years would allow for that to happen.

I don't debate that microevolution--variation within species--exists.  I don't believe that macroevolution--the changing of one species into a completely new species--has ever happened.  I even can accept speciation.  (The Bible says "each after its own kind," "kind" is not analogous to "species" as I understand the term to be defined.)

Maybe you (or someone else) could suggest a good book that would make me a believer in that concept.  Not the atheist equivalent of a Ray Comfort book (what a waste of money Intelligent Design vs. Evolution is turning out to be... what was I thinking?)  I promise to add it to my reading list (which is getting longer and longer and longer since I appear to be spreading myself far to thin lately!)

My first goal is still getting a freelance writing business up and running.  Three to six months from now, God willing.  Then I should have more time for reading (reading and writing are the writer's keys to success).

But if I could get some ideas in the meantime, I promise to consider them in due time with an open mind.

I still re-iterate this: I am not in the dark about various sides to the Great God Debate.  I have heard both sides in broad strokes.  If anyone can suggest where I might pick up the finer details of the non-Christian position, then I will be very interested in that material. 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: It's good

Cory T wrote:

It's good that my humor is appreciated.

I always appreciate your humor, Cory.  I suspect you're even funnier in person (even if you are a theist). Smile

 

Cory T wrote:
If anyone can suggest where I might pick up the finer details of the non-Christian position, then I will be very interested in that material.

If you haven't read The End of Faith by Sam Harris or The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins yet, I highly recommend both.

By the way, I understand the lack of time vs. the stack of books waiting for me.  Both grow larger every day.  Oh well, someday maybe I'll get to retire and those books will all still be waiting for me.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
[Hi, I'm new and I'm sure it

[Hi, I'm new and I'm sure it shows]

Gosai wrote

Quote:
Ignorance is the default position at birth.


Consider "non-theism" rather than "ignorance". Avoiding emotive words in your arguments makes them more palatable to both sides and prevents argument. But I suck at doing that myself.

Netsui wrote:
Quote:
Couldn't a baby be born as an agnostic?


Not really, since agnosticism is an epistemological conclusion, and you can't conclude something before you can understand the logic to draw that conclusion. Not even something as blatantly obvious as "nothing's provable". I don't feel that you could reasonably expect to find agnostics younger than about six.

Arletta wrote:
Quote:
if we are proven wrong on a theory, we ACCEPT and admit that we were wrong.

and kmisho wrote:
Quote:
No one of a properly scientific mind would deny evidence JUST BECAUSE it would support a position he finds distasteful or conflicts with what he already thinks.


Scientists are as human, opinionated and bigoted as anyone. Dissuading them of their life's work is HARD, for anyone. Also, "crackpot" hypotheses get less time than "reasonable" ones. Few physicists would even look at the evidence for a perpetual motion machine. They have only so many hours in the day.

Generally the requirement is that the evidence is far more than needed to push the balance of probability past the tipping point, so it's often easier to give enough evidence to get a little past the tipping point, then wait for the die-hards of the old republic to retire.

Science doesn't work because scientists are magically more open minded than real people, but because it is based on openness of research: journals demand peer review, that financial interests be declared, the ability to duplicate results, and so on.

CoryT wrote:
Quote:
Heavenly Father,
Please forgive your humble servant for thinking that this comment was stinkin' hilarious. I pray your blessings on this board and my time spent here in Jesus' name,
AMEN.

You can put a prayer on an atheistic board, and not only not get shouted at for it, but indeed make readers laugh more than the original post. Surely there can be no doubt that you're going to kick ass as a writer Smiling

Heck, if you wrote a book on apologetics, I might even buy it!

[pro tip, though: ascribing negative emotions to your reader ("you hate X&quotEye-wink isn't usually a votewinner]

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
DewiMorgan wrote: You can

DewiMorgan wrote:

You can put a prayer on an atheistic board, and not only not get shouted at for it, but indeed make readers laugh more than the original post. Surely there can be no doubt that you're going to kick ass as a writer Smiling

Heck, if you wrote a book on apologetics, I might even buy it!


Part of writing is, of course, knowing your audience.  You can look at some of my very early posts and see that it took me quite a bit of trial and error to know what I can get away with in regard to this particular audience.  My early interactions usually invoked colorful arguments.

I thank you for the compliment.  I've always had a talent for writing, I just figure now is the time in my life when I should turn talent into dollars and get paid for doing what I love.  And, I won't come home smelling like stale french fries!  BONUS!! 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
Gosai wrote: A friend of

Gosai wrote:

A friend of mine once said that everyone is born an atheist. And I replied that, "How do you know, you can't remember that far back."

This is my first quote on this forum and I would like to know your thoughts. Is atheism a natural tendency or is belief in something/someone beyond the forces of the world a natural tendency? In a single word what is the core difference between an atheist and a theist?

Cheers to AllCool

Finding comfort in having answers for things that are not understood is common.  Especially if they are easy answers that don't require extensive research and education.

As for your second question:
       Fear


Mr.Thomas
Posts: 9
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
All are Born atheist. IMO

All are Born atheist.

IMO the core difference between atheist and theist is courage.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Since you have never

 Since you have never debated evolution with a real creationist, how could you possibly know that? I can give you an extensive list of creation scientists who are no pigeons. I assure you.  One example is A.E. Wilder Smith who held three doctorates

As for the notion that we are born atheists, there are problems with that position. First, "appeal to the past" is a logical fallacy. Something (in this case atheism) does not become true because it is old. Second, humans are in their greatest state of ignorance as infants. This does not help the atheist position. Third, if we are going to appeal "antiquity" (the logical equivolent to this bogus claim), then we must also appeal to the infancy of the human race. Theism is older then atheism. The ancients always believed in a God or gods in some form or another. Lasty, there is no way to prove we are born atheists. The only way a person can make such an assertion, is if they first assume atheism to be true then engage in curcular reasoning.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:

AL500 wrote:

Since you have never debated evolution with a real creationist, how could you possibly know that? I can give you an extensive list of creation scientists who are no pigeons. I assure you. One example is A.E. Wilder Smith who held three doctorates

Please show me a creation argument with no logical fallacies. Did he have a doctorate in biology? Also calling them creation scientists is extremely misleading, they are not scientists, they are theologians at best!

AL500 wrote:

As for the notion that we are born atheists, there are problems with that position. First, "appeal to the past" is a logical fallacy. Something (in this case atheism) does not become true because it is old. Second, humans are in their greatest state of ignorance as infants. This does not help the atheist position. Third, if we are going to appeal "antiquity" (the logical equivolent to this bogus claim), then we must also appeal to the infancy of the human race. Theism is older then atheism. The ancients always believed in a God or gods in some form or another. Lasty, there is no way to prove we are born atheists. The only way a person can make such an assertion, is if they first assume atheism to be true then engage in curcular reasoning.

Babies are born knowing all but nothing. That is scientific fact. They have a pre-disposition by instinct to learn all they can from their parents. They are thus taught theism alongside anything else a baby can learn. However, babies can also learn for themselves, they can pick up language and learn how to walk. However, no child can really have a concept of God beyond "there's this magic bloke in the sky", but even then they will wonder how does he stay up there.

I remember my first impressions of religion, as a young child, a friend of mine of Catholic parentage used to tell me God lived up in heaven with Jesus, and that dead people went there, when he said up, I naturally thought it must mean on a hill. I had a very vivid dream which encapsulated this when my great gran died. I wrote it down in a surreal short story last year. I might post it up for general viewing actually. I wasn't exposed to religion at an early age, I kind of believed my friend in some way but not much of it made sense.

 

{edit - fixed quote} 


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Please show me a creation

Please show me a creation argument with no logical fallacies. Did he have a doctorate in biology? Also calling them creation scientists is extremely misleading, they are not scientists, they are theologians at best!

My Response: That statement shows you are not abreast in this field of study. Here is a partial list of creation scientists.

Lynn Carta, Ph.D.,USDA, Beltsville

Guillermo Gonzalez, Ph.D., Iowa State University

Walter Bradley, Ph.D., Baylor University

Mark Clark, Ph.D., Cal State San Bernardino

David Rogstad, Ph.D., Jet Propulsion Laboratories

George Lebo, Ph.D., University of Florida

Gerald Cleaver, Ph.D., Baylor University

Robert DiSilvestro, Ph.D., Ohio State University

Michael Strauss, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma

Alex Metherell, M.D. and Ph.D., former researcher at University of California Irvine.

Eric Klumpe, Ph.D., University of Texas

Erica Carlson, Ph.D., Purdue University

Kyle Cudworth, Ph.D. University of Chicago, Yerkes Observatory

Jeffrey Zweerink, Ph.D., UCLA

Evolution is a dying breed. Many scientists today either disbelieve in it or seriously question. 

Babies are born knowing all but nothing. That is scientific fact.

My Response: No, it is not a fact. It is an assumption. And even if one were to grant your argument, it does not help the atheist cause. If infants are born atheists and ignorant, what does that say about atheism?

 They have a pre-disposition by instinct to learn all they can from their parents. They are thus taught theism alongside anything else a baby can learn.

My Response: Being taught theism by their parents, does not in anyway prove that they were born atheists. Additionally, if being taught theism by their parents somehow negates theism, then being taught atheism must also of necessity negate atheism.

However, babies can also learn for themselves, they can pick up language and learn how to walk. However, no child can really have a concept of God beyond "there's this magic bloke in the sky", but even then they will wonder how does he stay up there.

My Response: That's not scientific. It's assumption.

 I wasn't exposed to religion at an early age, I kind of believed my friend in some way but not much of it made sense.

My Response: This fact does not help your case. Again, if theism is negated because it is taught, then logically atheism is also negated because it is taught. You cannot have it both ways. Lastly, as I stated in my other post, the argument is a logical fallacy -- appeal Argumentum ad Antiquitam.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Your list was copied and

Your list was copied and pasted from "Reasons to believe" a Christian group. I decided to do a little background check on these guys 

 

Lynn Carta - Is an agricultural expert, not a biologist.

Guillermo Gonzalez - "Research Interests: Dr. Gonzalez is primarily interested in studying the late stages of stellar evolution through the use of spectroscopic observations. Recent work includes spectroscopic abundance analysis of post-AGB supergiants and RV Tau variables. He has also undertaken a study of the parent stars of the recently discovered extra-solar planetary systems. The results indicate that these stars have anomalous chemical abundances, suggesting some sort of unusual formation history." Where's his creationism?

Walter Bradley, Ph.D., Baylor University - Is a mechanical engineer

Mark Clark - Political Scientist

David Rogstad - Is a physicist, there are always mavericks of course.  Does he have any expertise in biology.

George Lebo - An astronomer. That is not to say he is a physicist or a biologist.

Gerald Cleaver - Is a physicist at a Christian university.

Robert DiSilvestro - Nutritional biochemistry. Not a biologist. His subject is looking at what things are good and bad for us.

Michael Strauss - A physicist, cannot see anything that sets him as a theist. No interests in biology.

 Alex Metherell - Biophysics and engineering. Biology?

I really can't be bothered to do the rest. Are there any biologists? Could you give me one of these guys arguments for creationism? I would really like to read it. These guys try to show evolution wrong but none of them are biologists!!

Your argument was appeal to authority, you've offered no argument yourself.

By the way, I wasn't taught atheism. My parents are not religious but they are not atheists strictly speaking. I was exposed to some level of religion, just by living in society. Tell me of one child brought up without religious belief who really believes in God.

As for your argument "What does that say about atheism?" again it is poor. We are not saying we have the intelligence of babies, the opposite. Once we reached a certain age we realised that some of what we had been taught didn't make sense, we worked out a more logical way of gaining knowledge.

 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

Your list was copied and pasted from "Reasons to believe" a Christian group. I decided to do a little background check on these guys

 

Lynn Carta - Is an agricultural expert, not a biologist.

Guillermo Gonzalez - "Research Interests: Dr. Gonzalez is primarily interested in studying the late stages of stellar evolution through the use of spectroscopic observations. Recent work includes spectroscopic abundance analysis of post-AGB supergiants and RV Tau variables. He has also undertaken a study of the parent stars of the recently discovered extra-solar planetary systems. The results indicate that these stars have anomalous chemical abundances, suggesting some sort of unusual formation history." Where's his creationism?

Walter Bradley, Ph.D., Baylor University - Is a mechanical engineer

Mark Clark - Political Scientist

David Rogstad - Is a physicist, there are always mavericks of course. Does he have any expertise in biology.

George Lebo - An astronomer. That is not to say he is a physicist or a biologist.

Gerald Cleaver - Is a physicist at a Christian university.

Robert DiSilvestro - Nutritional biochemistry. Not a biologist. His subject is looking at what things are good and bad for us.

Michael Strauss - A physicist, cannot see anything that sets him as a theist. No interests in biology.

Alex Metherell - Biophysics and engineering. Biology?

I really can't be bothered to do the rest. Are there any biologists? 

Excellent catch, Jacob.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 You asked me to give you

 You asked me to give you the name of a non-theological Doctor of biology, then when I do, you accuse me of appealing to authority. The point is that no matter who I list, you will just try as desperatly as you can to discredit them. This is how atheists do things.

You Stated: As for your argument "What does that say about atheism?" again it is poor. We are not saying we have the intelligence of babies, the opposite. Once we reached a certain age we realised that some of what we had been taught didn't make sense, we worked out a more logical way of gaining knowledge.

My Response: My point is that babies are not very intelligent. And, appeal to the past is still a logical fallacy. You have yet to deal with this fallacy and prove that atheism is somehow validated because humans are born without belief. Human's are born ignorant. Your argument only shows that atheism and ignorance are somehow tied together.

You asked me to give you the name of a creationist Doctor of biology, then when I do, you accuse me of appealing to authority. The point is that no matter who I list, you will just try as desperately  as you can to discredit them. That's is how atheists do things.

You Stated: As for your argument "What does that say about atheism?" again it is poor. We are not saying we have the intelligence of babies, the opposite. Once we reached a certain age we realised that some of what we had been taught didn't make sense, we worked out a more logical way of gaining knowledge.

My Response: My point is that babies are not very intelligent. And, appeal to the past is still a logical fallacy. You have yet to deal with this fallacy and prove that atheism is somehow validated because humans are born without belief. Human's are born ignorant. Your argument only shows that atheism and ignorance are somehow tied together. As for creation scientists who specialize in biology, here is a partial list:

Richard Oliver Ph.D. (Biology)

David Kaufmann Ph.D (Anatomy)

John Scripture Ph.D (Biochemistry)

Inis Bardella B.S. (Biology), MD.

Duane Gish Ph.D.(Biochemistry)

Ken Kumming Ph.D. (Biology)

Dan Criswell Ph.D. (Biology/Microbiology)

David Dewitt Ph.D. (Neuroscience)

Frank Sherwin M.A. (Zoology).

Todd Wood Ph.D. (Biochemistry).

Gary Parker Ed.D (Biology)

Bert Thompson Ph.D (Microbiology)

David Menton Ph.D. (Cell Biology)

Joseph A. Mastropaolo Ph.D. (Physiology)

Carl Fliermans Ph.D. (Microbiology)

Ian Macreadie Ph.D. (Molecular Biology)

Andre Eggen Ph.D. (Molecular Genetics)

Lyubka Tantcheva Ph.D. (Biochemical Toxicology)

Walter Veith Ph.D. ( Zoology)

John K.G. Kramer Ph.D. (Biochemistry)

John Meyer Ph.D. ( Zoology)

Lane Lester Ph.D. (Genetics)

Alan Gillen, Ed.D. (Science Education)

Gregory Brewer Ph.D. (Biology)

Arthur Jones Ph.D. (Biology)

Kelly Hollowell J.D., Ph.D. (Mollecular and Cellular Pharmacology)

Donna O'Daniel M.A. (Biological Sciences)

Glen W. Wolfrom Ph.D. (Animal Husbandry)

Mark Armitage M.S. (Biology)

Richard Lumsden Ph.D. (Biology)

Shall I continue? I can list just as many, and more who are geologists and astronomers who scoff at evolution. As for your challenge to make an argument, consult the scientists above.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: As for

AL500 wrote:
As for creation scientists who specialize in biology, here is a partial list:

Richard Oliver Ph.D. (Biology)

David Kaufmann Ph.D (Anatomy)

John Scripture Ph.D (Biochemistry)

Inis Bardella B.S. (Biology), MD.

Duane Gish Ph.D.(Biochemistry)

Ken Kumming Ph.D. (Biology)

Dan Criswell Ph.D. (Biology/Microbiology)

David Dewitt Ph.D. (Neuroscience)

Frank Sherwin M.A. (Zoology).

Todd Wood Ph.D. (Biochemistry).

Gary Parker Ed.D (Biology)

Bert Thompson Ph.D (Microbiology)

David Menton Ph.D. (Cell Biology)

Joseph A. Mastropaolo Ph.D. (Physiology)

Carl Fliermans Ph.D. (Microbiology)

Ian Macreadie Ph.D. (Molecular Biology)

Andre Eggen Ph.D. (Molecular Genetics)

Lyubka Tantcheva Ph.D. (Biochemical Toxicology)

Walter Veith Ph.D. ( Zoology)

John K.G. Kramer Ph.D. (Biochemistry)

John Meyer Ph.D. ( Zoology)

Lane Lester Ph.D. (Genetics)

Alan Gillen, Ed.D. (Science Education)

Gregory Brewer Ph.D. (Biology)

Arthur Jones Ph.D. (Biology)

Kelly Hollowell J.D., Ph.D. (Mollecular and Cellular Pharmacology)

Donna O'Daniel M.A. (Biological Sciences)

Glen W. Wolfrom Ph.D. (Animal Husbandry)

Mark Armitage M.S. (Biology)

Richard Lumsden Ph.D. (Biology)

All these people are associated with the Institute for Creation Research. Nothing coming from these buildings is considered seriously for peer review. The Institute for Creation Research is a joke.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
  All these people are

  All these people are associated with the Institute for Creation Research. Nothing coming from these buildings is considered seriously for peer review. The Institute for Creation Research is a joke.

MY RESPONSE: Emotional responses never validate an argument. And if they were a joke, they would not have such a successful track record of defeating evolutionists in debates and writing.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:

 

AL500 wrote:

AiiA wrote:
 

All these people are associated with the Institute for Creation Research. Nothing coming from these buildings is considered seriously for peer review. The Institute for Creation Research is a joke.

MY RESPONSE: Emotional responses never validate an argument. And if they were a joke, they would not have such a successful track record of defeating evolutionists in debates and writing.

The Institute for Creation Research is not a reputable scientific institution. It starts with a presupposition, and tries to manipulate evidence to proove it with simple arguments from irreducable complexity. Evolution is the best documented, most widely accepted by good, hardworking scientists, best peer-reviewed scientific theory there is. The response you quoted of my atheist associate was not an emotional one, but pretty much a factual one.

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes]


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: AiiA

AL500 wrote:

AiiA wrote:
 

All these people are associated with the Institute for Creation Research. Nothing coming from these buildings is considered seriously for peer review. The Institute for Creation Research is a joke.

MY RESPONSE: Emotional responses never validate an argument. And if they were a joke, they would not have such a successful track record of defeating evolutionists in debates and writing.

AL500, there is a tutorial for using the quote function here.  

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
This is mostly for AL500,

This is mostly for AL500, but I suspect that the rest of the group will have a few things to say about this, too.

One of the reasons that I think that the so-called "Christ-myth," the position that Jesus Christ wasn't a real, historical person, is a load of garbage is what I like to call "academic bastardization." Almost all of the people who are proponents of the theory borrow from each other, and from the same source material from the past century. It's a small group that feeds off of each other, rather than modern scholarship.

Well, guess what? Creation science does the exact same thing. There are a few strong proponents of the theory, and they all feed off each other in the same academic bastardization process I described above for the Christ myth.

Yeah, I know, unexpected comment coming from a theist. Unfortunately, it's true, as much as I hate to admit it.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Emotional

AL500 wrote:
Emotional responses never validate an argument.
Non sequitur, I'm not talking about emotional responses, but if you what to change the subject feel free to do so. However, you are also incorrect in saying an emotional response can never be a valid argument. A valid argument can be expressed in any emotional mode. Emotionality does not invalidate an argument. An example of an emotional response would be something like: "Fuck you asshole." or "You are so fucking stupid your mother has to spoon feed you in a highchair." If these emotional statements are true, then they are valid.
Quote:
And if they were a joke, they would not have such a successful track record of defeating evolutionists in debates and writing.
Produce these so called debates.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
The Institute for Creation

The Institute for Creation Research is not a reputable scientific institution.

MY RESPONSE: Who says? Evolutionists like yourself? Where's the evidence it is not a reputable scientific institution?

 It starts with a presupposition, and tries to manipulate evidence to proove it with simple arguments from irreducable complexity.

MY RESPONSE: Evolution starts with a presupposition: atheism and naturalism, and then tries to manipulate evidence to prove it with simple arguments from irreducable complexity.

 Evolution is the best documented, most widely accepted by good, hardworking scientists, best peer-reviewed scientific theory there is.

MY RESEPONSE: Two fallacies: Argument ad vericundiam (appeal to authority) and argumenum ad populum (appeal to population/numbers). The majority of scientists once believed the world to be flat. Evolution is not science. It is a philosophy based on the presupposition of naturalism. Any honest scientist knows evolution to be fiction.  Lastly, it is not a fact that ICR is a "joke." It is an opinion.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
  Well, guess what?

 

Well, guess what? Creation science does the exact same thing. There are a few strong proponents of the theory, and they all feed off each other in the same academic bastardization process I described above for the Christ myth.

MY RESPONSE: I don't agree. Even if Creation science does the same thing, it does not prove their arguments to be invalid. And I don't agree that Creation science is held by a few. And even if it was, this does not detract in anyway from the truthfulness and evidence of their science.

Yeah, I know, unexpected comment coming from a theist. Unfortunately, it's true, as much as I hate to admit it.

MY RESPONSE:  You haven't established that its true.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Non sequitur, I'm not

Non sequitur, I'm not talking about emotional responses, but if you what to change the subject feel free to do so. However, you are also incorrect in saying an emotional response can never be a valid argument. A valid argument can be expressed in any emotional mode. Emotionality does not invalidate an argument.

MY RESPONSE: Your assertion that ICR is a joke, is an emotional response. It is non-factual and non-scientific. True, some emotional responses can be true. But yours isn't.

 

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
AL500: these are

AL500: these are nonthreading forums, so your posts will not relate to what you posted unless you include a quote of the message to which you are replying.

Also, please, for the love of anything you hold holy, please, learn to use the quote function.

At the moment, I think the best argument against theism is that theists don't quote. Clearly this indicates they cannot be either intelligent, nor moral. Please prove me wrong, by using the quote function.

If you don't know how, there's a whole tutorial devoted to explaining it, right here: http://www.rationalresponders.com/node/7011

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 You guys make me work too

 You guys make me work too hardYell. I'm too lazy, but I'll make an effort. Thanks.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 I don't think there is any

 I don't think there is any scientific evidence showing that we are born atheists, and even if there was, I don't see how logically it supports the validity of atheism. The basic argument rests upon an "an appeal to the past" fallacy. Something does not become true because it is older, anymore then theism becomes true because in our infancy as a human race we were theists. Logically, the atheist cannot accept the validity of their first hypothesis and reject the validity of the latter. If they are going to assert that kind of position, they must be consistent. Since I am a Christian, I believe we are tainted with a sin nature. If in fact babies are born atheists, the sin nature would explain why.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


DewiMorgan
DewiMorgan's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Personally, I think it

Personally, I think it depends on your definition of atheist. By the definition of this site, everything that doesn't verbally claim to be a theist is an atheist. "All cats are atheist." Also all rocks, and even religious symbols and books.

Babies can't talk.

Thus, by the definition of atheism used by this group are atheists.

Personally, I think that is a very black-n-white view of the world, that there are people who have heard about gods and believe in them (theists), those who have heard and understood about the idea of the supernatural but made a conscious decision to not believe (atheists), and a whole rainbow of things inbetween, including those who make that conscious decision but don't choose to call themselves atheist.

T="theists who's posts are fun-to-read, truth-seeking and insightful". Your own T will be different, but Tdewi includes { Avecrien, Cory T, crocaduck, JHenson, jread, wavefreak }


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: AiiA

AL500 wrote:
AiiA wrote:
Non sequitur, I'm not talking about emotional responses, but if you what to change the subject feel free to do so. However, you are also incorrect in saying an emotional response can never be a valid argument. A valid argument can be expressed in any emotional mode. Emotionality does not invalidate an argument.

Your assertion that ICR is a joke, is an emotional response. It is non-factual and non-scientific. True, some emotional responses can be true. But yours isn't.
The christian institute has not produced one academically valid scientific paper or argument. It's basis of purpose is a belief of a god. There has never been any scientifically established evidence of any god.

Quote:
AL500 wrote:
And if they were a joke, they would not have such a successful track record of defeating evolutionists in debates and writing.
Produce these so called debates.
And you seemed to have left out the second part of my post; is it because there are no such stated debates?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
The christian institute has

The christian institute has not produced one academically valid scientific paper or argument. It's basis of purpose is a belief of a god. There has never been any scientifically established evidence of any god.

MY RESPONSE: If you would bother to read the material on their site and their books, you would know your statement to be false. As for their debates, look around on their website.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: The christian

AL500 wrote:

The christian institute has not produced one academically valid scientific paper or argument. It's basis of purpose is a belief of a god. There has never been any scientifically established evidence of any god.

MY RESPONSE: If you would bother to read the material on their site and their books, you would know your statement to be false. As for their debates, look around on their website.

I have read some of the garbage on their website, and I call them a laughing stock in the scientific community. Find me one article from their joke of an institution that was peer reviewed by a journal other than theirs. They are oblivious to reality. Young earth creationism is the dumbest thing you could possibly believe in short of the earth being flat. Do you think the earth is flat too?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
MY RESPONSE: I have read

MY RESPONSE: I have read some of the garbage on the evolutionist websites, and I call them a laughing stock in the scientific community. Show me one article that was peer-reviewed from a journal other than theirs? Evolutionists are oblivious to reality. In an atheist universe we cannot even substantiate the existence of reality. The old earth theory has been systematically shreaded by true scientists. Read this article: http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_igneousbodies/ The only reason you believe in an old earth is because you have been indoctrinated and duped by the public education system which has an atheist agenda. Their teachings are based on politics, not science. The  people who once believed the world was flat, also teach evolution. They don't have a very good track record of accuracy. I wouldn't put so much trust in them.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote:

[MOD EDIT - content removed for insults and name calling.]

 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
I think we are all born

I think we are all born atheist (because we are not born with the concept of "god" ). I might consider theism to be a form of convergent social adaptation. Human intelligence, creativity, and most of all, the human desire to satisfy their social needs tends to lend themselves toward a unifying, collective hope - theism.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person