Are there any "true" atheists?

[Unknown Soldier]

Since when is theism universal?

Do you understand what "if" means?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Babies have to be taught theism. And some of them are not taught it. We can observe that. So theism is not universal and there are true atheists.

So the "if" is a hypothetical that can be ignored since it isn't real.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Babies have to be taught theism. And some of them are not taught it. We can observe that. So theism is not universal and there are true atheists.

So the "if" is a hypothetical that can be ignored since it isn't real.

Here's some evidence to the contrary if you're interested:
Out of the mouths of babes

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Babies have to be taught theism. And some of them are not taught it. We can observe that. So theism is not universal and there are true atheists.

So the "if" is a hypothetical that can be ignored since it isn't real.

Here's some evidence to the contrary if you're interested:
Out of the mouths of babes

That many children are prone to learn some religion doesn't mean they are not atheists. Some become theists, some don't. Some that became theists go back to atheism because it is more logical. Sure, not everyone is logical about it. Statistics do not imply universality.

 

[TomC]

Babies have to be taught theism. And some of them are not taught it. We can observe that. So theism is not universal and there are true atheists.

So the "if" is a hypothetical that can be ignored since it isn't real.

Here's some evidence to the contrary if you're interested:
Out of the mouths of babes

Did you actually read that?

The conclusion was that children are ignorant and prone to superstition, until they outgrow it.
Tom

 

[abaddon]

Babies have to be taught theism. And some of them are not taught it. We can observe that. So theism is not universal and there are true atheists.

So the "if" is a hypothetical that can be ignored since it isn't real.

Here's some evidence to the contrary if you're interested:
Out of the mouths of babes

Did you actually read that?

The conclusion was that children are ignorant and prone to superstition, until they outgrow it.
Tom

That's the problem with Unknown Soldier's stance. The "proneness", or impulses, or unconscious patterns, are treated as definitive of what the person inherently is.

He said that he looked into the "dark places" of his mind and found an impulse towards theism there. Which he then calls "theism" as if an impulse is a full-fledged belief, and then wonders how that squares with his atheism. Though the solution to the conundrum is, all along, to think it through and either take up the impulse towards theism as a consciously chosen life-stance, or resolve the dissonance by finding the impulse doesn't pan out when examined in the light of day.

I already said this same basic thing some pages back, saying that accepting impulses without thinking results in getting used by them like a marionette doll. He responded with something about "you can't be rational all the time". Which is a vote for being an unthinking person. Being rational doesn't replace feeling or imagination or intuition. It's to guide them so they serve life instead of undermine it. Also to avoid letting belief about the existence of God/gods/goddesses be chosen for you by impulses.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Babies have to be taught theism. And some of them are not taught it. We can observe that. So theism is not universal and there are true atheists.

So the "if" is a hypothetical that can be ignored since it isn't real.

Here's some evidence to the contrary if you're interested:
Out of the mouths of babes

Did you actually read that?

The conclusion was that children are ignorant and prone to superstition, until they outgrow it.
Tom

That's the problem with Unknown Soldier's stance. The "proneness", or impulses, or unconscious patterns, are treated as definitive of what the person inherently is.

He said that he looked into the "dark places" of his mind and found an impulse towards theism there. Which he then calls "theism" as if an impulse is a full-fledged belief, and then wonders how that squares with his atheism. Though the solution to the conundrum is, all along, to think it through and either take up the impulse towards theism as a consciously chosen life-stance, or resolve the dissonance by finding the impulse doesn't pan out when examined in the light of day.

I already said this same basic thing some pages back, saying that accepting impulses without thinking results in getting used by them like a marionette doll. He responded with something about "you can't be rational all the time". Which is a vote for being an unthinking person. Being rational doesn't replace feeling or imagination or intuition. It's to guide them so they serve life instead of undermine it. Also to avoid letting belief about the existence of God/gods/goddesses be chosen for you by impulses.

You're mostly right, but, to be fair, you must give him time to develop his thesis. One of his previous threads, on how atheists mischaracterize evidences of faith as insubstantial, ran to 811 posts (and counting.) This one's still in its infancy. These things work in accumulative fashion. You must allow for an assertion, then a repetition of the assertion, then perhaps hundreds of reassertions. Then, unexpectedly, from sheer repetition of the assertion, you behold a finished case. See how it works?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

That's the problem with Unknown Soldier's stance. The "proneness", or impulses, or unconscious patterns, are treated as definitive of what the person inherently is.

That's not my stance. In fact it is your position that pigeon-holes people into binary classes of "atheist" or "theist." As any informed person knows, the human psyche is way too complex, changeable, and uncertain to define people according to simplistic labels. So congratulations--you posted what is perhaps the main difficulty of the theory that some people are absolutely atheistic.

He said that he looked into the "dark places" of his mind and found an impulse towards theism there. Which he then calls "theism" as if an impulse is a full-fledged belief, and then wonders how that squares with his atheism.

That "impulse" you refer to is theism. I've noticed, at least at times, that God seems to me to be a very real possibility. So calling something a different name doesn't change the facts.

Though the solution to the conundrum is, all along, to think it through and either take up the impulse towards theism as a consciously chosen life-stance, or resolve the dissonance by finding the impulse doesn't pan out when examined in the light of day.

Why not "solve the conundrum" by accepting the evident fact that a person does not fit well either category of atheist or theist?

I already said this same basic thing some pages back, saying that accepting impulses without thinking results in getting used by them like a marionette doll.

I think being affected by "impulses" is unavoidable. That's why supermarkets stack candy in the checkout aisles.

He responded with something about "you can't be rational all the time". Which is a vote for being an unthinking person.

Your simplistic, unrealistic binary thinking strikes again. Just because a person is not completely rational all the time doesn't make her or him an "unthinking person." I admit I'm not always rational yet I'm a very active thinker.

Being rational doesn't replace feeling or imagination or intuition. It's to guide them so they serve life instead of undermine it. Also to avoid letting belief about the existence of God/gods/goddesses be chosen for you by impulses.

That's the ideal, but the human psyche is rarely ideal. We need to learn to live with our behavior based on emotion and recognize it's reality, and that includes the "religious impulse."

 

[bilby]

We need to learn to live with our behavior based on emotion and recognize it's reality, and that includes the "religious impulse."

But there is no "religious impulse".

The childish assignment of agency to natural events and circumstances is a long way short of theism. At most it's animism. And it's probably a learned behaviour - the very structure of most languages incorporates animistic concepts that are unavoidably taught to children incidentally to their learning the language itself.

In Yorkshire, where I grew up, animism is fundamental to the dialect. We would say "That milk doesn't want to be left out of the fridge", despite the implausibility of milk having any opinion whatsoever.

No gods are involved in this animistic impulse; Just the projection of human qualities, such as desires, upon inanimate objects.

To take the evidence that children behave as animists, without being explicitly taught to do so, as evidence of children being born theists, is stretching to an absurd degree. More absurd still, when we recognise that this behaviour itself is almost certainly implicitly taught as a byproduct of learning to speak and understand languages.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Why not "solve the conundrum" by accepting the evident fact that a person does not fit well either category of atheist or theist?

just because that may be true for *a* person doesn’t mean it is true for all people.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Being rational doesn't replace feeling or imagination or intuition. It's to guide them so they serve life instead of undermine it. Also to avoid letting belief about the existence of God/gods/goddesses be chosen for you by impulses.

That's the ideal, but the human psyche is rarely ideal. We need to learn to live with our behavior based on emotion and recognize it's reality, and that includes the "religious impulse."

The impulse to feign some level of control over a situation, if even just tiny, isn't religious impulse. It is a general desire of the mind in order to not panic at uncertainty. We see it this in a decent amount of life in addition to religion, such as astrology and superstition and even in ardent adherence to routine. Unless you are saying "Rally Caps" are a religious thing.

Of most things, what our minds fear the most is:

1. A lack of control
2. The unknown
3. Being wrong

This is generally the reason why we get trapped in superstitions, even if they are completely and utterly ridiculous. Dancing in fancy dress to make it rain is really little different to kneeling in a building, hands clasped together, in silent thought to an invisible entity we think can hear us to help with a family relative's bad health condition. It is just that due to number 2 and especially 3, it is hard for people to let go of the idea.

 

[bilby]

Being rational doesn't replace feeling or imagination or intuition. It's to guide them so they serve life instead of undermine it. Also to avoid letting belief about the existence of God/gods/goddesses be chosen for you by impulses.

That's the ideal, but the human psyche is rarely ideal. We need to learn to live with our behavior based on emotion and recognize it's reality, and that includes the "religious impulse."

The impulse to feign some level of control over a situation, if even just tiny, isn't religious impulse. It is a general desire of the mind in order to not panic at uncertainty. We see it this in a decent amount of life in addition to religion, such as astrology and superstition and even in ardent adherence to routine. Unless you are saying "Rally Caps" are a religious thing.

Of most things, what our minds fear the most is:

1. A lack of control
2. The unknown
3. Admitting to being wrong

This is generally the reason why we get trapped in superstitions, even if they are completely and utterly ridiculous. Dancing in fancy dress to make it rain is really little different to kneeling in a building, hands clasped together, in silent thought to an invisible entity we think can hear us to help with a family relative's bad health condition. It is just that due to number 2 and especially 3, it is hard for people to let go of the idea.

FTFY.

 

[abaddon]

I've noticed, at least at times, that God seems to me to be a very real possibility.

Good. But do you realize that's not contradictory to being an atheist?

I like speculating about what sort of God might be a "real possibility" too. I just don't find any. But I'm acquainted with a few naturalistic sorts of gods available as beliefs, if one drops the wholly impossible notion that there's a spirit-matter division to reality. Substance dualism is certainly false but metaphysical idealism is not. So, if metaphysical idealism is true then there's a universal mind, and the apparently separate minds of humans and animals are kind of dissociated bits of the One Mind. A person with an inclination to mythical thinking might want to call it God if they want to.

But, thing is, I don't invest belief into the idea because I'm not convinced at this point that it's true.

Whatever impulses lead to my thinking about a thing like that, they're not what determines whether I believe in it. They just "lean" me into that direction. Then I apply thinking to it and wonder "should I invest myself into believing it?" and so long as the answer is "No" then I'm not a theist. The day I say "yeah, I feel convinced enough" is the day I've converted from atheism to theism. Which isn't a prospect that fills me with horror, because I want it. But, like in the grocery checkout aisle, I don't grab the candy simply for wanting it.

So anyway, I wonder what stops you from believing that seemingly "real possibility" that captures your imagination at times?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've noticed, at least at times, that God seems to me to be a very real possibility.

Good. But do you realize that's not contradictory to being an atheist?

I'm more curious what his thoughts on god have to do with what other atheists think, which is what his thread is allegedly about.

 

[steve_bank]

One of Soldier's recent arguments appears to be atheists act like theists, therefore atheists are really theists?

I have said for a long time as I see it in general moral and ethical behvior atheists and teists gnerally behave the same. The problem for us atheists is that thesists claim to be empowered by a deity to impose morality derived from a hodge podge of ancent writings. The key words here are 'theists', believing in a god and 'A-theist' no befell in a god. Mustily exclusive terms.

The difference between theist and A-theist is we do not worship, perform rituals, or pay homage, or feel subservient to any and all imagined deities.

Atheist and Christians general behavior are generally the same. Thists/Chrtians belve in a suprenatural god created reality.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I have decided that Unknown Soldier is right but hasn't gone far enough. Not only do we atheists believe in god, we also believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior in our hearts, and that means whatever we do we, get to go to Heaven. Even if we think we're atheists we're wrong and so the whole test of faith thing was never really consequential.

Let me put this another way. The test of faith is basically like Indiana Jones in the Lost Ark:

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Being rational doesn't replace feeling or imagination or intuition. It's to guide them so they serve life instead of undermine it. Also to avoid letting belief about the existence of God/gods/goddesses be chosen for you by impulses.

That's the ideal, but the human psyche is rarely ideal. We need to learn to live with our behavior based on emotion and recognize it's reality, and that includes the "religious impulse."

The impulse to feign some level of control over a situation, if even just tiny, isn't religious impulse. It is a general desire of the mind in order to not panic at uncertainty.

Sure. That sounds about right, but unfortunately you didn't define "religious impulse."

We see it this in a decent amount of life in addition to religion, such as astrology and superstition and even in ardent adherence to routine.

I would add that a tenacious adherence to dogmas can also serve as a level of assurance that one is "right" and therefore able to overcome difficulties using knowledge that one actually doesn't have. For example, using home remedies that have no curative powers to help a loved one get over illness can serve to mitigate panic in the face of that kind of uncertainty.

Of most things, what our minds fear the most is:

1. A lack of control
2. The unknown
3. Being wrong

That's one list, but it's not difficult to come up with many other lists of what we fear the most.

This is generally the reason why we get trapped in superstitions, even if they are completely and utterly ridiculous. Dancing in fancy dress to make it rain is really little different to kneeling in a building, hands clasped together, in silent thought to an invisible entity we think can hear us to help with a family relative's bad health condition. It is just that due to number 2 and especially 3, it is hard for people to let go of the idea.

I think there's some truth to what you're saying here, but I'm not sure how it relates to what I said about the great difficulty we can have overcoming our emotions including the human tendency to act religiously.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I have decided that Unknown Soldier is right but hasn't gone far enough. Not only do we atheists believe in god, we also believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior in our hearts, and that means whatever we do we, get to go to Heaven. Even if we think we're atheists we're wrong and so the whole test of faith thing was never really consequential.

How sure are you that you won't go to hell?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I have decided that Unknown Soldier is right but hasn't gone far enough. Not only do we atheists believe in god, we also believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior in our hearts, and that means whatever we do we, get to go to Heaven. Even if we think we're atheists we're wrong and so the whole test of faith thing was never really consequential.

How sure are you that you won't go to hell?

It's because you are such a superb poster that you have convinced me that I only think I am atheist. I am actually unconsciously a fundie Christian. So obviously, I won't go to hell.

 

[steve_bank]

What makes you think uo are not in hell now?