Why I secretly root for Atheists in Debates

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Likewise, but for the last five years -- not a word one way or the other about religion, god, the pope, priests etc. And on the odd occasion we do go into a church/see priests/interact with religion somehow, she gets just the plain facts; no spin and no emotional kicking or shoving and especially no insults, jokes or threats.

But even at the gentle age of five, snowflake has already been pressured into religious belief, mostly recently a couple of weeks back by Popette (about whom much anon) who told snowflake that she couldn't love anybody properly unless snowflake believed that god exists. Thanks, Popette! Anyhow, snowflake said that she certainly could love people like mummy and daddy and anyway Popette "was stupid and boring" and "what was wrong with her when she said silly things like that?"

Popette only has herself to blame for that one.

'My' experiment is about to turn 28.

As a child in London his school took all the children to various churches, Mosques, Synagogues etc where great care was taken to ensure all information was unbiased and respectful of people's beliefs.

When he would spend time with his grandmother in Ireland she would take him to Mass.

His best friend was a Jew, his other best friend was the child of a Sligo Catholic and an Ulster Presbyterian.

His other friends were Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Anglican and Seventh Day Adventists. Plus a few Atheists.

Most of the adults he knew were Socialists or at least leftys.

He has utterly rejected the concept of religion - despite achieving very high (A++) marks in 'Religious Studies' in the School's Certificate (eqv. to our Junior Cert) while in High School in Australia and does not believe there is a God.

He is also not exactly singing the Red Flag...!

He votes the way he wishes to vote even when his left-wing Mammy is having a rant about it as he has not been indoctrinated into any political ideology or family loyalty to a political party. He rants back at Mammy :mad:.

He was exposed to a wide range of religious beliefs and found them all lacking. His studies on the existence of God led him to reject the idea.

LittleBook

robindch wrote: »

not a word one way or the other about religion, god, the pope, priests etc.

It's that simple, yet theists seem to think that we teach atheism to our kids.

"I'm not teaching her about god and religion."
"Really? So, what ARE you teaching her?"
"Eh ... nothing." :pac:

LittleBook

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

To ensure their moral obligations were fulfilled (except they're pretty much agnostic so it was really, I learnt in later years, to get a lie in) when we were 5 we were duly sent to sunday school.

:pac: Wish I'd thought of that.

Bannasidhe

LittleBook wrote: »

It's that simple, yet theists seem to think that we teach atheism to our kids.

"I'm not teaching her about god and religion."
"Really? So, what ARE you teaching her?"
"Eh ... nothing." :pac:

'See that? That's the Milky Way! Here have a look through this telescope..'

'Have a look at this - it's a slow motion film of a whale leaping out of the water.'

'Hey - I got you a chemistry set. Wanna see if we can make stink bombs???'

'I don't know exactly how that happens, something to do with hot and cold air colliding I think - lets look it up.'*

*Last Sunday - soon to be 6 years old granddaughter has developed a serious interest in anything weather related. Sunday's interrogation was on Tornadoes and our first port of call was the National Geographic. If I had tried to tell her 'God' makes tornadoes I would have been withered and she would have still sat there with copies of the NG - she only 'needed' me to read the hard words and find videos of tornadoes on the web for her.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

But even at the gentle age of five, snowflake

LittleBook

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'See that? That's the Milky Way! Here have a look through this telescope..'

You remind me of the time we were on holidays in the country. All the kids were in bed and we were having drinks outside and I looked up and saw the milky way .... it was so clear it looked like a photo. I went upstairs, woke up my daughter and brought her out to see it. We just sat there for an hour, in the middle of the night, looking up at it an chatting about astronomy and mythology. Feel a bit teary now.

ShooterSF

So if we're all born with religion in our genetics why did the one real god (whichever one it is) choose to plant muslim genes, christian genes, hindu genes, buddhist genes etc in us when that would doom many to whatever that religions bad ending is?

Also if people before us were born with the norse gods gene, roman gods gene and greek gods gene does that mean that a mutation took place to create the jew god gene and then through survival of the fittest the other genes died off? Did I hear you say evolution?

joseph brand

Sonics2k wrote: »

I love how you're blatantly ignoring Penn, who has explained it to you twice now.

Sarky

That's not how genes work. Why do people say things like that? It hurts my feelings

Bannasidhe

LittleBook wrote: »

You remind me of the time we were on holidays in the country. All the kids were in bed and we were having drinks outside and I looked up and saw the milky way .... it was so clear it looked like a photo. I went upstairs, woke up my daughter and brought her out to see it. We just sat there for an hour, in the middle of the night, looking up at it an chatting about astronomy and mythology. Feel a bit teary now.

*sigh* Isle of Skye Dec 1989 2 a.m. Aurora Borealis dancing across the sky - 5 year old dragged out of bed, wrapped in blankets, coats, hats etc and brought outside to gaze in wonder. Wonderful old brass telescopes were produced.
Bit teary myself now.

I suppose that, along with religious beliefs, economic and political ideologies are genetically determined in children, too. It's well known that Marxist parents give birth to Marxist children, capitalist parents to capitalist children, anarchist parents to anarchist children, and so on. Some might say it would be ridiculous to argue that a young child has any understanding of political or economic ideologies, let alone the meaning of the words. But, those same people would probably argue, on the same basis, that a child has absolutely no inherent understanding of religion or religious beliefs. But they're obviously wrong, because religious beliefs are genetically determined. It's not just an accident of birth: that would be silly to argue.

Bannasidhe

gvn wrote: »

I suppose that, along with religious beliefs, economic and political ideologies are genetically determined in children, too. It's well known that Marxist parents give birth to Marxist children, capitalist parents to capitalist children, anarchist parents to anarchist children, and so on. Some might say it would be ridiculous to argue that a young child has any understanding of political or economic ideologies, let alone the meaning of the words. But, those same people would probably argue, on the same basis, that a child has absolutely no inherent understanding of religion or religious beliefs. But they're obviously wrong, because religious beliefs are genetically determined. It's not just an accident of birth: that would be silly to argue.

Indeed. My mother's family votes FF (well - did, they've copped themselves on), my father's are all FG...so naturally I used to vote Labour because our house was soooo lefty :rolleyes:.

I seem to have 'missed' getting the if it's not FF it must be FG gene :eek:

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed. My mother's family votes FF (well - did, they've copped themselves on), my father's are all FG...so naturally I used to vote Labour because our house was soooo lefty :rolleyes:.

I seem to have 'missed' getting the if it's not FF it must be FG gene :eek:

I'm sure that can be explained away by some recessive combination of the FF and FG genes. We'd have to know the way your ancestors voted to work it all out, though. Genetics is complicated stuff, especially when talking about politics.

Bannasidhe

gvn wrote: »

I'm sure that can be explained away by some recessive combination of the FF and FG genes. We'd have to know the way your ancestors voted to work it all out, though. Genetics is complicated stuff, especially when talking about politics.

Maternal side - anti-treaty morphing into FF voters
Paternal side - pro-treaty morphing into FG voters

But mother's cousin was a Labour TD for many years so perhaps there is a recessive lefty gene!

18AD

But people aren't born atheist either, right?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Maternal side - anti-treaty morphing into FF voters
Paternal side - pro-treaty morphing into FG voters

But mother's cousin was a Labour TD for many years so perhaps there is a recessive lefty gene!

Ah, yes. That's probably it! It's awful complicated stuff, this political genetics.

18AD wrote: »

But people aren't born atheist either, right?

If atheism is defined as "a lack of belief in a god", then what would children be if not atheist?

Bannasidhe

18AD wrote: »

But people aren't born atheist either, right?

Are babies born believing in the existence of God.
No.
Are children taught to believe in the existence of God.
Yes.

Either that or by an amazing coincidence Christian children are born believing in the Christian God, Jewish children in the Jewish God, Muslim children in Allah and Hindu children in a whole heap of Gods.

Logically if all children are born believing in God then those beliefs should be pretty much similiar...or there are a lot more 'Gods' then some people would have us believe....

robindch

gvn wrote: »

I suppose that, along with religious beliefs, economic and political ideologies are genetically determined in children, too.

Humor aside, that's the "nature"-only side of the "nature/nurture" debate; still generally unresolved.

But during the early part of the 20th century, most people and especially, it seems, most politicians, believed that nature was the most influential part -- hence the various eugenics or genocidal campaigns which aimed to rid society of unhelpful genetic characteristics and ultimately produce a genetic utopia of flawless purebreds.

18AD

gvn wrote: »

If atheism is defined as "a lack of belief in a god", then what would children be if not atheist?

It'a a category mistake. If babies don't have any beliefs at all. They aren't in the game of beliefs yet. It's like saying a rock is an atheist. Rocks don't have beliefs, so the statement makes no sense.

It's like saying babies are political nihilists/anarchists because they don't have any political inclinations. They're not though.

Edit: They don't "lack a belief in god". Because they lack all belief. In fact, they don't lack it, because they don't have the ability to have it in the first place.

Bannasidhe

18AD wrote: »

It'a a category mistake. If babies don't have any beliefs at all. They aren't in the game of beliefs yet. It's like saying a rock is an atheist. Rocks don't have beliefs, so the statement makes no sense.

It's like saying babies are political nihilists/anarchists because they don't have any political inclinations. They're not though.

Soooo, lets extend that thought - If babies don't have any beliefs at all. They aren't in the game of beliefs yet = lack of belief = atheism. QED.

A Primal Nut

Just to reply to one part of it:

Craig, religious guy wrote:

If God exists, then we clearly have a sound foundation for objective moral values and moral duties.

There is no clearly about it. There are numerous contradictions in the bible and among how Christians live their lives (look at the amount of demoninations). It's no more a solid foundation than for those who don't believe in God.

He then goes on to say:

But if God does not exist, that is, if atheism is true, then there is no basis for the affirmation of objective moral values; and there is no ground for objective moral duties because there is no moral lawgiver and there is no freedom of the will. And therefore it seems to me that atheism is simply bereft of the adequate ontological foundations to establish the moral life.

I'd actually agree with this (if I understand him correctly). How moral an atheist is, is upto the individual, just like with religious people.

Harris: Alright, nine million children die every year before they reach the age of five. Okay, picture an Asian tsunami of the sort we saw in 2004, that killed a quarter of a million people. One of those, every ten days, killing children only under five. That’s 20,000 to 24,000 children a day, a thousand an hour, 17 or so a minute. That means before I can get to the end of this sentence, some few children, very likely, will have died in terror and agony. Think of the parents of these children. Think of the fact that most of these men and women believe in God, and are praying at this moment for their children to be spared. And their prayers will not be answered. But according to Dr. Craig, this is all part of God’s plan. Any God who would allow children by the millions to suffer and die in this way, and their parents to grieve in this way, either can do nothing to help them, or doesn’t care to. He is therefore either impotent or evil.

The author dismisses this as him falling back on insulting Christians. Actually the point he is making is that even if a Christian morality existed, it's not a kind of morality that would make the world a better place.

The morality we've all evolved to have is generally a better morality for the world than the one Christians/Jews/Muslims get from their books.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Humor aside, that's the "nature"-only side of the "nature/nurture" debate; still generally unresolved.

But during the early part of the 20th century, most people and especially, it seems, most politicians, believed that nature was the most influential part -- hence the various eugenics or genocidal campaigns which aimed to rid society of unhelpful genetic characteristics and ultimately produce a genetic utopia of flawless purebreds.

Of course, and what a tragedy it was. Just as a curiosity: was it ever believed by those carrying out or involved with eugenics or genocidal campaigns that beliefs, such as religious or political or philosophical, were determined by nature, as opposed to nuture? I'd always thought eugenics programs were concerned with genetically determined physical traits, or mental disabilities; I'd never considered that they might have been concerned with eradicating those with particular beliefs. And perhaps they weren't, and I'm reading into your post a little too much.

18AD wrote: »

It'a a category mistake. If babies don't have any beliefs at all. They aren't in the game of beliefs yet. It's like saying a rock is an atheist. Rocks don't have beliefs, so the statement makes no sense.

It's like saying babies are political nihilists/anarchists because they don't have any political inclinations. They're not though.

Edit: They don't "lack a belief in god". Because they lack all belief. In fact, they don't lack it, because they don't have the ability to have it in the first place.

I'd tend to agree with you. I've never liked calling children atheists, not only because the word atheist is such a loaded word to some, having many (sometimes negative) connotations, but also because, as you said, children lack the ability to believe. Having said that, I don't believe children are born with any inherent, latent belief in a god that manifests itself once a child is able to believe. So, in that respect, I'd consider them "atheists," though it might not be the best word to use.

Tonyandthewhale

18AD wrote: »

But people aren't born atheist either, right?

Atheism isn't about rejecting belief in god(s) (although a lot of atheists are atheists because they rejected belief in god(s)).
Atheism is a lack of belief in god.

Newborn babies don't actively reject the idea of god, but they don't believe in god either so they're atheist. It doesn't mean they'd all agree with us and be posting in the religious scandals thread if only their pudgy little hands were dexterous enough to type.

In fact, the assertion that babies are by default atheist doesn't even discredit the proposition that god(s) might exist. I mean, babies don't necessarily believe in the existence of angle grinders or microwaves or mobile phones either (because they haven't been introduced to them). So you don't need to feel threatened by the assertion that babies are atheists, it only came up because of a confused discussion with onesimus about burden of proof.

Remember, atheist doesn't not equal angry boards.ie atheism and agnosticism poster. It's a much broader church than that.

EDIT: I'd agree with gvn that 'atheist' might be a somewhat loader word to us but it's still technically correct. And bear in mind, the topic of atheism or religiosity as inherent only came up because onesimus doesn't understand genetics or burden of proof or what constitutes 'scientific proof (it doesn't have to be genetic to be scientific),' so it's not something anyone should get too worried about.

Bannasidhe

gvn wrote: »

I'd tend to agree with you. I've never liked calling children atheists, not only because the word atheist is such a loaded word to some, having many (sometimes negative) connotations, but also because, as you said, children lack the ability to believe. Having said that, I don't believe children are born with any inherent, latent belief in a god that manifests itself once a child is able to believe. So, in that respect, I'd consider them "atheists," though it might not be the best word to us.

Yes, it is a 'loaded' term but as what it literally means is lack of belief in the existence of God - nothing more/nothing less - and as there is no evidence to support the contention that children believe in God from the moment of birth (or perhaps conception - but then they don't actually have a functioning brain yet so can they 'believe' anything..?) 'atheism' is the default setting whether we like the term of not.

Dades

I'm on the side of babies not being born atheists, using the word in any meaningful manner. I believe the term is only relevant when applied to someone who has the capacity to believe in god(s).

Otherwise infants might as well be 'pioneers' as well.

There's nothing I've seen in any definition that refutes my wish to leave babies out the atheism bucket so I'm sticking with this notion.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yes, it is a 'loaded' term but as what it literally means is lack of belief in the existence of God - nothing more/nothing less - and as there is no evidence to support the contention that children believe in God from the moment of birth (or perhaps conception - but then they don't actually have a functioning brain yet so can they 'believe' anything..?) 'atheism' is the default setting whether we like the term of not.

But if the concept of "belief" doesn't pertain to a baby, how can the idea of a lack of belief, in this context, make any sense?

Tonyandthewhale

Dades wrote: »

There's nothing I've seen in any definition that refutes my wish to leave babies out the atheism bucket so I'm sticking with this notion.

So long as we can agree there's no evidence to suggest the existence of a Catholic gene.

Penn

Dades wrote: »

I'm on the side of babies not being born atheists, using the word in any meaningful manner. I believe the term is only relevant what applied to someone who has the capacity to believe in god(s).

I would agree and disagree in equal amounts. I'd be on the side of babies being born atheist, but I wouldn't feel any need to classify them as such until they had the capacity to believe in god(s).

Turtwig

Babys are born atheists but just to appease everyone I say they're agnostic. If a religious person could admit that then I'll be happy. But no, they're still born a Catholic.

As for Nature/Nurture debate. Just about to start reading 'The Blank Slate' by Pinker. Anyone else read it?

Ickle Magoo

gvn wrote: »

But if the concept of "belief" doesn't pertain to a baby, how can the idea of a lack of belief, in this context, make any sense?

I suppose it depends how literally you want to take the meaning of atheist.

I think it can sound a bit funny when referring to never moving from the default because so many have experienced some kind of religious faith and then re-examined their beliefs as teens/adults and declared themselves atheist...and that's often the public perception of an atheist, someone who has rejected their faith.