For Christians:If god exists why must you prove it?

[Learner]

True but the notion that "people are born atheist" is false!

You become atheists i.e. choose to be atheist after some time, learning and gaining understanding . The obvious to say: Born with "nowt" experience or knowledge!

''Atheism'' is not a religion, nor is it necessarily an ideology. The word itself simply means someone who is 'without theistic beliefs' - which may include new born babies......or anyone who holds no theistic beliefs.

Cheers DBT, fair point , I was taking Atheism from this pov (I borrowed an example from Kai E. Nielsen link) :

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence.

(Also to Abaddon's post)

 

[Learner]

I think your algorithm has a glitch.
Do you think people are born atheists or not born atheists?

I hadn't slept well for a few days (rushing about organising things) so may have sounded a little deliriously glitchy .

I'd like to say born with the "image of God" built-in i.e. "born theist" but I don't think that will go well with this discussion.

It probably wouldn't go down well, because it sounds kind of like bullshit. That's because atheist parents tend to have atheist kids and theist parents tend to have theists kids, which would suggest that the whole "image of god" thing is something learned from one's environment.

You know what ? I could sort of go with that .

 

[Rhea]

True but the notion that "people are born atheist" is false!

You become atheists i.e. choose to be atheist after some time, learning and gaining understanding . The obvious to say: Born with "nowt" experience or knowledge!

''Atheism'' is not a religion, nor is it necessarily an ideology. The word itself simply means someone who is 'without theistic beliefs' - which may include new born babies......or anyone who holds no theistic beliefs.

Cheers DBT, fair point , I was taking Atheism from this pov (I borrowed an example from Kai E. Nielsen link) :

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence.

(Also to Abaddon's post)

No idea who Nielsen is. Sounds like a guy who wants to make atheism all about theism. Why? You want a better source.

You have atheists right in front of you, live, who have been telling you what atheism means to them. Yet you ignore us utterly and look up some guy we’ve never heard of.

Why?

 

[Rhea]

When you’re a Christian, you need people to tell you that you are doing it right. When you don’t believe in any theism, you don’t need anyone to tell you how not to believe right. Therefore, there are no atheism spokespeople, and you are better off understanding who you are talking to instead of searching for some creed that does not exist. By definition.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ask an expert

Nobody is born believing in the teachings of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc, etc.

True but the notion that "people are born atheist" is false!

You become atheists i.e. choose to be atheist after some time, learning and gaining understanding . The obvious to say: Born with "nowt" experience or knowledge!

No child is born believing in Santa and a Tooth Fairy.

 

[Juma]

True but the notion that "people are born atheist" is false!

You become atheists i.e. choose to be atheist after some time, learning and gaining understanding . The obvious to say: Born with "nowt" experience or knowledge!

''Atheism'' is not a religion, nor is it necessarily an ideology. The word itself simply means someone who is 'without theistic beliefs' - which may include new born babies......or anyone who holds no theistic beliefs.

Cheers DBT, fair point , I was taking Atheism from this pov (I borrowed an example from Kai E. Nielsen link) :

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence.

(Also to Abaddon's post)

Nah. Atheism is lack of theism. End of story.

 

[Learner]

No idea who Nielsen is. Sounds like a guy who wants to make atheism all about theism. Why? You want a better source.

You have atheists right in front of you, live, who have been telling you what atheism means to them. Yet you ignore us utterly and look up some guy we’ve never heard of.

Why?

Source ? It's the explanation borrowed (ready available) , regardless of whether this person is "well known" or not - It's the same pov as I understood of atheism.

 

[Learner]

No child is born believing in Santa and a Tooth Fairy.

I agree (depending on later in life with particular types of parents as Tom's post highlights) they're not born "knowing" the meaning of "naturalism" either.

 

[Learner]

Nah. Atheism is lack of theism. End of story.

Is that ALL atheism is?

Lets make a compromise (moving on ) and say: babies are alll born "Agnostic" (don't leave them out) . You can have the lack of theism and also ... have them not knowing either way.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Nah. Atheism is lack of theism. End of story.

Is that ALL atheism is?

Lets make a compromise (moving on ) and say: babies are alll born "Agnostic" (don't leave them out) . You can have the lack of theism and also ... have them not knowing either way.

Yes, that's all atheism is. It means you don't believe in any gods - full stop. Now, there are a number of atheistic philosophies, such as naturalism, which build a worldview off of the premise that there's nothing supernatural out there. Colloquially speaking, however, the broader umbrella term of "atheism" is used to refer to an atheistic philosophy such as naturalism. It sounds like that's how you're using it and it's actually fine to use it that way.

Oh, and fuck the goddamned agnostics. Pick a side, you wimpshit little bitches.

 

[Juma]

Nah. Atheism is lack of theism. End of story.

Is that ALL atheism is?

Lets make a compromise (moving on ) and say: babies are alll born "Agnostic" (don't leave them out) . You can have the lack of theism and also ... have them not knowing either way.

Eh. Why not. They can be agnostic too. Atheist and agnostic.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nah. Atheism is lack of theism. End of story.

Is that ALL atheism is?

Lets make a compromise (moving on ) and say: babies are alll born "Agnostic" (don't leave them out) . You can have the lack of theism and also ... have them not knowing either way.

So, your "compromise" is that you still define atheism as a positive choice, thus denying its application to describe babies (which seems an important point to you), ANDdenying the inputs of more than one atheist in this thread.

How is that a compromise? That's just you trying to rephrase your own premise as if you're changing your point. But you're not.

Especially since the 'agnostic' definition you seem to be using is the common one, where one finds both sides of the argument compelling and cannot decide between them. Wouldn't that require the baby to actually understand the arguments for and against the existance of gods?
"doesn't know" is not actually a useful definition of agnosticism. Being unable to make a choice is different than not having sufficient grasp to even possible make a choice...

 

[Rhea]

Learner, you are desperate to claim we “rejected” God, aren’t you? You are unable to cope with the fact that there are people who didn’t make a choice, but who merely never met your god.

I think that’s why you won’t answer this question, even though I brought it to your attention 4 times now.


Because you are desperate to believe that your god is knowable.

You’re never going to answer this question, are you?

Could I then exchange "choice" for "decided" ...or "made-up-your-mind ?

I'm going to try to help you with this.

If there a robbery in my neighbor's house, and I didn't see anything, have I "decided" to not be a witness? Have I made a "choice" to not be a witness? Did I "make up my mind" to not be a witness?

Nope. I am not a witness. I didn't see anything. Fact followed by fact.

So Learner, which of these statements is true, then?

1. Have I "decided" to not be a witness?
2. Have I made a "choice" to not be a witness?
3. Did I "make up my mind" to not be a witness?
4. I am not a witness. I didn't see anything. Fact followed by fact.

Atheism... a-theism... means without gods.
We were born that way and some of us remain that way - having never ever seen any evidence for a god, and therefore being completely unable to suppose one exists.

 

[steve_bank]

Nah. Atheism is lack of theism. End of story.

Is that ALL atheism is?

Lets make a compromise (moving on ) and say: babies are alll born "Agnostic" (don't leave them out) . You can have the lack of theism and also ... have them not knowing either way.

Babies are born a-santa clause, a-unicorn, a-political....atheist. Kids are indoctrinated without consent into theism, without the ability to say no. An experienced adult can make a choice, a child can not.

 

[DBT]

Nah. Atheism is lack of theism. End of story.

Is that ALL atheism is?

Lets make a compromise (moving on ) and say: babies are alll born "Agnostic" (don't leave them out) . You can have the lack of theism and also ... have them not knowing either way.

Some folks do try to make more of atheism than is justified. Often it's theists trying to support their faith, sometimes it is Atheists trying to construct an ideology....both are pushing it too far.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think your algorithm has a glitch.
Do you think people are born atheists or not born atheists?

I hadn't slept well for a few days (rushing about organising things) so may have sounded a little deliriously glitchy .

I'd like to say born with the "image of God" built-in i.e. "born theist" but I don't think that will go well with this discussion.

Research leans towards all humans being born animist. That's believing that all objects, inanimate and otherwise have spirits that we can communicate with. Everything else has to be learned. Or unlearned.

I like Pinker's theory on why. He think's it's a side-effect of our grammar instinct. Since we have an instinct to think of the world as things (nouns) doing things (verbs) to other things, we have trouble telling things with agency apart form things without. The assumption is always that all things have agency, and it's something we have to unlearn. There's probably evolutionary explanations to it.

Assuming something alive and dangerous doesn't have agency has an extremely high cost, while assuming that something dead and harmless also does, has a lot lower cost.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've heard tons of atheists asserting (preaching) that there is no hell.

Could it be that the idea that hell exists is preposterous? On the face of it, it's the ultimate bogeyman. "If you don't eat all your greens, the Babadook is going to get you". I think it's excedingly childish to believe in it. I fail to see how an adult can fail to see through it.

Not only that, but there's zero evidence of it's existence. So it's on the face of it unlikely to be true, and on top of that has nothing to back it up. It's the weakest of all hypoethesis.

I have a trouble taking adults who believe in hell seriously. I wonder if they have trouble brushing their teeth and tying their shoelaces. It's on that level of idiocy

Live like there's no tomorrow. Survival of the strongest. Law of the jungle. The meek inherit nothing. Decide for yourself what is good and what is...wait! LOL there's no such thing as evil.

That's a terrifying dystopia compared to biblical eschatology.

If you need the threat of hell to keep you from raping and murdering, you are just a bad person. Which begs the question, if you are an evil person, why are you Catholic? When a country secularises we see no rise in violent crime. It's actually the opposite. So all evidence proves the exact opposite from this.

 

[Lion IRC]

If you believe god exists and have faith in an afterlife, why must you prove it and why get hostile to those who reject it?

When was the last time a Christian proved to you that God exists?
Trust me on this. Christians don't have to do that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you believe god exists and have faith in an afterlife, why must you prove it and why get hostile to those who reject it?

When was the last time a Christian proved to you that God exists?
Trust me on this. Christians don't have to do that.

Yes, they do. We all need to prove to ourselves that something is true to believe it. What sets us apart is what we'd accept as sufficient evidence. The fact that Christians in one breath says that God is ineffible and in their second that God wants this that and the other, tells us that Christians usually haven't thought through what God is. Yet, they chose to believe in it.

I once went to a lecture series where a Jesuit monk talked about Christian theology. It was a very good lecture series and he was aware of all the problems and paradoxes with the God theory. I know that all Catholic priests who go to seminary have to learn all this. They are not stupid people, and Catholic doctrine and teachings are not retarded. But you are making them out to be. The Catholic clergy is well aware there's a high degree of myth and metaphor regarding the Catholic teachings.

That Jesuit monk didn't say whether he believed in hell or not. He explained that if you think that's a relevant question, you haven't understood Christian theology or the Catholic faith. You've revealed that this also goes for you

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you believe god exists and have faith in an afterlife, why must you prove it and why get hostile to those who reject it?

When was the last time a Christian proved to you that God exists?
Trust me on this. Christians don't have to do that.

Well, that's lucky because you all do a really shitty job in your attempts at it. If more Christians would follow their god's advice and only pray in private where nobody can see them and shake the dust off their feet and move on when someone isn't interested in the man then the situation would resolve itself and all sides could move on not really caring about the others.