Religious debate (split from main board)

[IBlvNTmWrk]

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any gods, not someone who actively believes in no gods. A newborn has never heard of god, and hasn't been indoctrinated into belief. Thus, all newborns are atheists (until their parents - sadly - get a hold of them).

But worms on a Wii made it clear that his beliefs are based on what has been shown to be true!

Agnosticism, fwiw, is used to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. I don't believe any infant knows for sure one way or the other.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I was born an atheist because when you're born you don't believe in God. You're taught to believe by other people.

Right sparky, I find it silly to say you are any thing when you are born.

k:

 

[CSpindizzy]

Evolution is a set theory. Evolution doesn't vary. Evolution is an incontrovertible scientific fact. The mechanisms for evolution, and the rate at which it operates, are 'variable' and subject to reasonable scientific disagreement. There is an important distinction between evolution and natural selection that you need to get a handle of.

If you are referring to a very broad and vague concept that things evolve, yes you are right. Thought evolves, technology evolves, etc. But a phrase like "theory of evolution" is not some universal and single concept.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

So why is it so evil their parents get a hold of them?

 

[BeecherVol]

An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god. So yes, infants are atheists.

Nope.

That requires an understanding, that infants do not have. At a year old, you crap in your pants, and you do not know your own name. I doubt at this point, you have given God much thought.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Nope.

That requires an understanding, that infants do not have. At a year old, you crap in your pants, and you do not know your own name. I doubt at this point, you have given God much thought.

+1

Seems silly to grandstand being an atheist when you are born.

:question:

 

[turambar85]

But worms on a Wii made it clear that his beliefs are based on what has been shown to be true!

Agnosticism, fwiw, is used to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not. I don't believe any infant knows for sure one way or the other.

My apologies, I was sloppy. Actively disbelieving in god is a sufficient condition for someone to be an atheist, however, it is not a necessary condition. You can be an atheist without having ever heard of god. That is definitional. A-theist. A-logical. A-sexual. These mean: without theist. Without logic. Without sexuality. The prefix a- simply means without. Definitionally atheism doesn't require a positive belief in gods non-existence. But, this is an important aspect of philosophical atheism.

Now, agnosticism was coined by Huxley to mean an attitude taken towards propositions (the a-prefix connected to gnosticism doesn't work as straightforwardly here). Huxley wanted this to speak of how we entertained and attached certainty (or didn't) to statements about the world. Thus, you can't be an agnostic until you've encountered the ideas. However, you can be an a-theist (without theism) prior to rational reflection. Atheism is the natural state of things.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Are we delving into whether infants are blank slates with no understanding?

 

[BeecherVol]

Evolution is a set theory. Evolution doesn't vary. Evolution is an incontrovertible scientific fact. The mechanisms for evolution, and the rate at which it operates, are 'variable' and subject to reasonable scientific disagreement. There is an important distinction between evolution and natural selection that you need to get a handle of.

Second, you seem to have a curious definition of faith. Faith necessarily has in it the idea that the person of faith holds onto the belief despite, or in spite of, evidence to the contrary. Faith precedes and supercedes reason. You would not say that a Christian had faith if she said something like "right now I guess I believe in god because it is the most reasonable hypothesis I have encountered. However, I will keep looking, and if something more sensible comes along, I am all over it." You wouldn't bat an eyelash in saying that she is not a person of faith. Similarly, faith doesn't apply to scientific theories or people with secular mindsets. I don't think I need to elaborate anymore, I'm sure you get the point.

By "vary", do you mean change?

 

[turambar85]

If you are referring to a very broad and vague concept that things evolve, yes you are right. Thought evolves, technology evolves, etc. But a phrase like "theory of evolution" is not some universal and single concept.

That it because the theory of evolution is the connection of the fact of evolution with a theoretical mechanism (though, please, don't ignore earlier warnings and pretend that theory means anything like it does in common language).

 

[turambar85]

So why is it so evil their parents get a hold of them?

It is a psychologically binding (to a large degree) life changing belief structure that is given to you as a birth right. You're practically compelled to believe something so monumental without any choice.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Again, evolution is broad - are you speaking in physiological, psychological, technological terms? Etc? Are you referring to a beginning from this "Big Bang"? The single celled organism? What starting point are you referring to in evolution? Is this just with life? With all matter? We're getting broad here.

 

[BeecherVol]

It is a psychologically binding (to a large degree) life changing belief structure that is given to you as a birth right. You're practically compelled to believe something so monumental without any choice.

My kids will undergo this in our public school system.

 

[turambar85]

Again, evolution is broad - are you speaking in physiological, psychological, technological terms? Etc? Are you referring to a beginning from this "Big Bang"? The single celled organism? What starting point are you referring to in evolution? Is this just with life? With all matter? We're getting broad here.

Biological evolution - I would have thought it obvious what the reference was to given the thread. Oh well. Also, cosmology is not biology. Nor is it biological evolution. The big bang is cosmology. Stop trying to destroy divisional lines between areas of study - cosmologists don't appreciate being erased.

 

[turambar85]

My kids will undergo this in our public school system.

Theyre in public school before they can think? And what are they systematically indoctrinated into believing (and, similarly to religion, at the threat of going to hell if they stop)? What speculative principles are force-fed to pre-cognizant children outside of the home?

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

My "beliefs" in the sense of what I believe to be true, are based on what can be shown to be true, rather than thought to be true.

I was born an atheist because when you're born you don't believe in God. You're taught to believe by other people.

Never said any of that, just saying that babies are by definition both agnostic and atheist.

Just too much inconsistency in your statements. You could learn from turambar... we may disagree but he at least displays reason with his comments... whereas your responses are mostly antagonistic.

You don't understand what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. Theories do not interpret facts, they explain them with mechanisms and predict future facts, which if confirmed, validate the theory. There are many ways to explain a fact, but there are only a few ways to explain a collection of facts. A big bang model is the only model that fits the facts we have about the universe. In fact, it made predictions about the universe that were later shown to be true.

Please refrain from telling me what I "don't understand". For example, I understand that "interpret" means "to explain"... but you apparently don't know this since you chose to correct me above by replacing one word with the other. And as far as big bang being the only model, it appears other scientists would disagree... although perhaps they came to their conclusions by only interpreting the facts rather than explaining them.

Physicist Robert Gentry published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model. Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term.

 

[BeecherVol]

Theyre in public school before they can think? And what are they systematically indoctrinated into believing (and, similarly to religion, at the threat of going to hell if they stop)? What speculative principles are force-fed to pre-cognizant children outside of the home?

So our public schools are open to all types of belief?

I can't not make my children believe or not believe in God. If I take them to church 3 times a week, for the rest of their childhood, that does not make them a christian. That is a choice they will make.

 

[bam15]

Just too much inconsistency in your statements. You could learn from turambar... we may disagree but he at least displays reason with his comments... whereas your responses are mostly antagonistic.




Please refrain from telling me what I "don't understand". For example, I understand that "interpret" means "to explain"... but you apparently don't know this since you chose to correct me above by replacing one word with the other. And as far as big bang being the only model, it appears other scientists would disagree... although perhaps they came to their conclusions by only interpreting the facts rather than explaining them.

Physicist Robert Gentry published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model. Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term.

Trying to stay out of this argument. Never knew that religion could be such a testy topic. I do disagree with what you said though, Scientists will agree that the Big Bang has flaws, but 99.9% favor the Big Bang over creationist ideas.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

So our public schools are open to all types of belief?

I can't not make my children believe or not believe in God. If I take them to church 3 times a week, for the rest of their childhood, that does not make them a christian. That is a choice they will make.

Exactly.

 

[turambar85]

So our public schools are open to all types of belief?

I can't not make my children believe or not believe in God. If I take them to church 3 times a week, for the rest of their childhood, that does not make them a christian. That is a choice they will make.

The problem is it that this just isn't statistically backed up. There is a reason that a) there is an astonishingly large correlation between place of birth and religious belief and b) studies have shown that people are very unlikely to give up their childhood religion. When you teach somebody from childhood that god exists...when you coach your language and entire worldview in terms of god, and when you say you go to hell for not believing, it pretty much ends the game right there.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Trying to stay out of this argument. Never knew that religion could be such a testy topic. I do disagree with what you said though, Scientists will agree that the Big Bang has flaws, but 99.9% favor the Big Bang over creationist ideas.

Nice stat... not sure where you got it... but it has nothing to do with the point. My reply was not to compare Big Bang vs Creationism among scientists, but to dispute Mr. Wii's statement that Big Bang is the only model... it is not.

 

[BeecherVol]

The problem is it that this just isn't statistically backed up. There is a reason that a) there is an astonishingly large correlation between place of birth and religious belief and b) studies have shown that people are very unlikely to give up their childhood religion. When you teach somebody from childhood that god exists...when you coach your language and entire worldview in terms of god, and when you say you go to hell for not believing, it pretty much ends the game right there.

What it boils down to is the fact, that my kids will be exposed to both. I can't make their mind up for them, no different that my parents making up mine.

They will have to decide what happens to them after they die. If nothing happens, they will have to decide what to do while they are here. Which in that case, would not really matter after they die.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

The problem is it that this just isn't statistically backed up. There is a reason that a) there is an astonishingly large correlation between place of birth and religious belief and b) studies have shown that people are very unlikely to give up their childhood religion. When you teach somebody from childhood that god exists...when you coach your language and entire worldview in terms of god, and when you say you go to hell for not believing, it pretty much ends the game right there.

Respectfully disagree turambar. If, in your example, (a) is true then therefore the reverse of (a) must be true... i.e. there is also a large correlation between "place of birth" (people who are NOT taught Christianity) and the lack of religious belief. In other words, how can you believe in something if you've never truly been exposed to it? On the other hand, I know of many people who were "raised on religion" that chose to walk away from it... Wii being a perfect example.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Biological evolution - I would have thought it obvious what the reference was to given the thread. Oh well. Also, cosmology is not biology. Nor is it biological evolution. The big bang is cosmology. Stop trying to destroy divisional lines between areas of study - cosmologists don't appreciate being erased.

It's not obvious to everyone. I ask this of those claiming to believe in "evolution" all the time. I get far ranging answers. Even among professors in college I got varying answers. I was asking a question to see from those who believe in "evolution" to see what the definition was. And I still cannot get a straight answer on the starting point of biological evolution. When? What does it include - all matter, carbon based lifeforms, etc.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Trying to stay out of this argument. Never knew that religion could be such a testy topic. I do disagree with what you said though, Scientists will agree that the Big Bang has flaws, but 99.9% favor the Big Bang over creationist ideas.

Was this scientifically polled? Proof? Link?