Rejection is doubt manifest into action. So atheists doubt God first at some point after they understand the concept, they then believe in non God, and most here that are atheists who post rejected theism based on their own personal failures with it.... I put the doubters and the rejecters on the same side...the atheist side, opposite those who believe and those who actually practice their faith actively, with the agnostics in the middle who have no clue either way. Ask a real agnostic about God, they will tell you they have no idea... Think of it like black, and white, with something which is neither black nor white in between...
No, I would not argue with them, but when I speak of atheistic faith, the first and primary definition given fits exactly, as does it fit with theistic faith. So both theist and atheist end up in a practice of faith...
Do you enjoy just making these things up and posting them? Profile For ZZZzzzzzzz Date Registered: 06-14-04 Status: Outed Total Posts: 24818 (26.21 posts per day) Oh yes... I guess you do.
Humans are intrinsically social creatures as classified by social evolutionists. To sub categorizes as tribal only reinforces the notion that homo sapiens are social creatures. In any event, anomalies aside, we should agree on the general attributes of the majority of humans. Politics is a function of our social nature. It is the natural extension of our social natures. It's how we guide our social interactions. Does a baby possess a political nature? Absolutely, given that politics is just a function of our social natures. But you will only see it manifest when it develops the congnitive reasoning skills to do so. Just look at how children interact in a dayschool or kindergarten. Studies have already been done on this aspect of humanity so I won't belabor it here. But suffice it to say, the disposition is there. Ok, sure, the nuances of "todays" politics are complex, but they had far simpler roots going back. Was it survival instinct that started it? I believe it was the combination of the homo sapiens survival instinct as well as his innate social nature that did. Correct in part. The susceptibility towards embracing superstition is innate in humans. Always has been. You can even see it in the homo sapiens cousin, the neanderthal. If it weren't, you wouldn't see religion so widespread and so easily accepted inspite of the fact that as a human develops, his congnitive reasoning skills mostly increase. Yes, but atheism is not ignorance. Atheism is a conclusion. You see, I would agree that humans are born atheist if atheism has been and currently is a majority view in the world. Currently, it's somewhere around 8-10% of the world's population. But that's mostly in western world countries who have had the luxury of free thought and philosophical development. And, yes, one of the definitions of atheism is "a lack of belief in gods." However, there is no known culture in antiquity that was atheist. This is important because if the claim is that we are born atheist but become theist by teaching, an atheist culture would show this to be true. Just think. Perhaps one human going back thousands of years conjured up some proto-religion. If humans were born atheist, that proto-religion should not have taken root. But since the opposite is true, in that a proto-religion did take hold and eventually evolved into more structured and dogmatic religions, it clearly shows that there is an innate desire in humans to want to believe in fanciful things. Since that is the case, we can't say that humans are born atheist nor theist. But we can say that humans are born with a strong susceptibility for belief in fanciful things. That is their condition. That is their predisposition. At some point in the past, some homo sapien communicated his imaginations to another. The other believed it because, well that is the human disposition to do so. Then it was passed on and so forth. And given our innate social nature, groups began to indentify themselves by this imagination. Then dogmas were formed. Etc, Etc. Atheism must be taught or acquired in somewhat like manner that theism is taught. This is so because humans will imagine fanciful things left to their own devices and eventually communicate these ideas. A baby born to atheist parents will be in a household that shuns things related to theism and in fact teach the child that there is no god or to question such an idea explicitly and/or implicitly. They will answer the ultimate questions for him or her during the child's formative years but from the perspective of a materialist. Given human history and human nature, there is only one responsible conclusion: humans are born far more susceptible to fanciful ideas than rational ones. But they are not functionally born atheist, nor theist. They're simply ignorant of the world at large. An interesting discussion would be; which came first in human evolutionary development? Atheism or theism? You could argue that before they had the cognitive reasoning skills to imagine, they were atheist. But the problem with that might be one of semantics which must rely on the definition that atheism means, "without belief." But then, other higher order sentient animals can also be deemed atheist. All the primates until homo sapien and homo sapiens neanderthal were atheist then. But then again, they didn't demonstrate all that much imagination. "Without belief in gods," when applied to humans, must entail without the ability to believe in order to state that the innate nature of all humans is atheist. With the ability to believe having to be taught. As that is what would undo that alleged innate atheist disposition. In my opinion, the proper definition for atheism is "one who disbelieves in gods or gods" or "the doctrine that there is no god." Why do I think that? Because atheism is about rational thought. Rational thought must be taught and communicated. We know that humans left to their own device will invariably conjure up irrational thoughts which can and do lead to fanciful ideas. To challenge or examine those fanciful ideas, you will need to concentrate to rational thinking. That's why it took many thousands of years for atheism to show up on the scene of human development. They credit Epicurius (sp?) with the seeds of atheist rational thought. A knowledge base had to be built up before humans could even begin to entertain the opposite of what was born of their innate natures. But for what you are thinking, in the sense that babies are born without religion, which of course is true, I think the better if not proper definition is non-religion. So babies are born in a state of non-religion. But non-religion is not the antithesis to religion. It's just a blank slate/canvas. All other offshoot definitions of atheism, given the word's etymology, were just necessary attempts to remove the perjorative nature of the word. But to include the state of a new born human into the definition of atheism, while seemingly correct, is IMO, intellectual dishonesty given not only the history of humanity, but the commonly observed nature of humans. We probably won't agree and that's fine. The current dogma in the atheist community is to state that we're all born atheist. This would be an important position to take if one believes that atheism would be the better doctrine and worldview for humanity going forward. It's as if by adopting atheism, we're going back to our roots in humanity and will be able to continue our seemingly peaceful evolution before religion took hold.
ir·ra·tion·al /ɪˈr¿ʃənl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[i-rash-uh-nl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation âadjective 1. without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason. 2. without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment. 3. not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical: irrational arguments. 4. not endowed with the faculty of reason: irrational animals. 5. Mathematics. a. (of a number) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers. b. (of a function) not capable of being expressed exactly as a ratio of two polynomials. 6. Algebra. (of an equation) having an unknown under a radical sign or, alternately, with a fractional exponent. 7. Greek and Latin Prosody. a. of or pertaining to a substitution in the normal metrical pattern, esp. a long syllable for a short one. b. noting a foot or meter containing such a substitution. ============== What a joker. Not exactly synomyns are they? But you're equating faith with irrational is very telling about you. Someone "with the faculty of reason" can have faith that a career criminal won't commit another crime. Faith certainly isn't built on a foundation of logical reasoning, but that doesn't make it irrational. Willfully refusing to develop faith is more irrational, considering what a baron and stark existence that must be. I ask again, it's a yes or no question. Is it irrational for a child to believe in Santa Claus? If not, how can it be irrational for a man to believe in god? "Material evidence" is wholly subjective when trying to prove a negative. Many view trees as "material evidence" of a divinity. Merry Xmas!
So then, you would give equal credence to someone who believes, and has faith in, the existence of flying unicorns as you would to someone who believes in evolution? Equal weight?
Because the flying unicorns created the earth and people. They continue to protect those who believe in them.
What value is there to believing in a God you have never seen and know nothing about aside from what you have read in books written by people whose credibility you know nothing about? Why is one more fanciful than the other? Perhaps this someone who believes in flying unicorns also believes that worship of such creatures will bring spiritual bliss and eternal life. Sound familiar? (EDIT: James, you beat me to it!)