Does God Suffer From Vanity?

No. Atheism is not a principle or set of principles or beliefs. You can believe in a religion, a God, or another religion, or another set of Gods. But when you have nothing to believe in, then you just don't have a belief. Even strong atheism, those who deny God's existence, do not have a belief. There is not a belief of the nonexistence of God, as in the twisted logic of z10. If you don't believe in something, does not mean you believe in non-something.

An analogy is anarchism. Anarchy is not a form of government. It is lack of government. Anyone calling anarchy a form of government is delusional.

 

You're right. It is human nature (or at least part of it) to want to believe in a superbeing. There is nothing wrong with it, as long as it doesn't interfere with our ability to reason. When fundamentalists try to place religion on the same level as science, they harm science by impeding our ability to reason, at the same time they degrade religion into a utilitarian tool.

 

Exactly. Which is why no one can disprove my stated belief that flying unicorns are the source of all biological life (borrowing the phrase "biological life" from Z). Thank you for your understanding and support. We're finally making headway in a mutual appreciation of one another's beliefs and that they all carry equal weight. Exhilarating, isn't it?

 

There you go again, tripping over your own feet. First you suggest that no single belief is better than another and now you wish to present my newly found belief system to the chat room for a bit of mockery. And this despite the fact that you cannot disprove it. If I may borrow your choice of words, You are actively practicing faith in non flying unicorn. (Please refer to your own post on page 22 of this thread for the relevant parallel.) There you go again, claiming intellectual superiority. I wonder what traumatic event in your life must have precipitated such dogma.

 

I am not tripping over my own feet, thanks for your concern though.

I am not knocking your sincere and heartfelt beliefs in flying unicorns being the source of all biological life. I am quite happy that you have finally found something that may bring you peace and happiness in life.

So while I am not mocking you, I think the folks in the chat room will though, and since you don't go there any more, nor do you read the log....

So if I can give them a chuckle, why shouldn't I? No one is harmed, right?

Oh, and for the record, I am not practicing faith in non flying unicorns, I have no opinion on the matter, I am agnostic on flying unicorns...but again, if that lifts your boat, that is fine by me.

Also, and I am not claiming intellectual superiority, I am claiming that atheism is a faith in non God, just as theism is faith in God, as agnosticism is faith in the inability to determine God or non God.

Faith is inescapable...

Yes, I do wonder what trauma precipitated your dogmatic positions, but since you told everyone of your catholic upbringing, I can only surmise a relationship with a priest that went down under...

 

Volente,

My apologies for not replying to your post.

“Could it be there is no argument against the truth ?”

I think that is what we are trying to establish here, as far as possible: the existence of God as a fact or true. What is true, is true, until there are reasonable grounds for disputing or disproving it.

I’m not familiar with the “argument from ignorance” as theoretical standpoint. If it is nothing more than you state, then it has no value for either side.

ZZZ,

I wish I could predict the markets with such confidence.

Grant.

 

Then let's agree on the intrinsic / innate characteristics of humans. But that should not include the direct attributes learned consequentially from those innate characteristics, which is what you are doing.

The point is we were discussing babies innate characteristics, which amount to breathing, pooping, a recognition of hunger and crying - an expression of the innate survival instinct. It can be reasonably assumed they have an innate sense of learning can it not? Some personality traits hard wired exceptional nervousness, distinct curiosity - But that is about as far as it goes in the context we are discussing..

ddunbar come on. The innate part would be that capacity to learn, not the things they learn. They learn they can interact and how to interact and manipulate things to their own advantage. They become 'political animals' as it assists their best interests in survival or satisfies a fancy. It’s the capacity to learn itself which is innate, not the political results of the process.

Survival looks to be innate. Social actions are learned in order to facilitate that 'innate' survival instinct. Social groups offer power and strength which assists innate survival. It's not the other way around. Social groups can also bring catastrophe. The base instinct then is to survive first - then secondly to facilitate that. Humans switch groups or run – when driven by the innate instinct to survive - not necessarily to be in a group. The desire to group is driven by innate survival instinct which is secondarily associated with self interest.

You are still jumping two fences in one go. Anything, any real threat, or any idea of threats against survival and wellbeing is what would cause superstition. Survival is the first fence which is the innate part. That fear is passed on to others, but in the context we are discussing the innate fear rooted in not being able to survive, not in the superstition that creates. You have already confirmed the superstition itself as manifested in religion is not innate at birth. That people broadly become to find it useful, does not make it innate.

Not only a conclusion. As I said previously and we seem to agree at least on this, to a baby, neither theism nor atheism is a conclusion. You therefore say the baby's condition is more precisely described as a state of non-religion. I agree.

But we were talking about theism. Do you make a distinction? If you do not, religion /non-religion and theism/atheism are equal meaning. If you do make distinction, a baby has no theism and is therefore without theism. The word and meaning for that is atheism.

But non-religion that is a privative term. In essence you are indicating the absence of religion which is anyway generally termed as atheism. In those circumstances religion / non-religion, theist atheist. Where one is negated the other applies.

Where both are just not present, which is the case as far as the baby is concerned , simply neither is considered by the baby. There is no privative implication or realization for the baby but there is for you and me and those recognizing the circumstances in the world around it.

I just see you conveniently temporarily ignoring theism (religion) as existing outside the baby's cognition which creates an artificial understanding of what we know is in the world. Whenever describing actual circumstances prevailing , atheistic and theistic represents clear difinitive understanding of what the baby is and more to the point, is not experiencing.

Not having something is the antithesis of having it. To us, the baby does not have theism. The antithesis of theism is atheism. Only personal to the baby is neither considered. My view is theism causes the baby's actual atheism in the world outside its own understandings, by the mere fact only of the existence of theism. If not for theism, babies could not actually be in the state of atheist.

Wrong way round. Given the word's etymology derives from ancient Greek atheos. a- "without" + theos "god," , it is clear its base is just that simple. With a god or without a god. Additional connotation comes after that not before it.

I can see no justification for what you are saying. Attempts to remove pejorative terms came later after expressions of the word collected additional various significances. Mostly it can be said, by the baseless claim that to be without God is to be Godless is to be evil or some such like simplistic horseshite.
But at the very root derivation of the word in its original form, it carries no such judgmental meaning.

Atheism is in essence simply the absence of theism.

Perhaps if you were to deliberate more openly on a more careful and considered inspection of the history of humanity, and the commonly observed nature of humans, without the dominating influence of the superstition you have aligned to, always conditioning your mindful investigations to one specific pre conclusion, you might discover we often find words and meanings and actions can hold a far fuller picture of human understanding than might thereunto be appreciated. Then maybe you would not jump so readily to crudely dismiss other group or peoples’ reasonable viewpoint as dogma in the way you have.

After all, have a thought for those babies. They are atheist too.

 

stuey's opinion is not consensus...

In philosophical and atheist circles, however, this common definition is often disputed and even rejected. The broader, negative has become increasingly popular in recent decades, with many specialized textbooks dealing with atheism favoring it.[36] One prominent atheist writer who disagrees with the broader definition of atheism, however, is Ernest Nagel, who considers atheism to be the rejection of theism (which George H. Smith labelled as explicit atheism, or anti-theism): "Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief... Thus, a child who has received no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist—for he is not denying any theistic claims."[37]

Oh, and a review of the real etymology and history of the term atheist and atheism shows that stuey is once again talking out of his arse...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

I have to reject the spirit of what you are saying because you're making a baby out to be some sort of species which eventually evolves into another species called a mature adult.

The baby is a homo sapien. All the characteristics of an adult homo sapien will be seen even if in a rudimentary manner in its young.

The homo sapiens characteristic for learning is innate and never ceases through its lifespan. Its capacity for imagination only increases through its lifespan. But that too is inate.

They don't learn that they will interact. The fact that they will interact is hardwired. They are social animals. The nuances of interaction might be learned such as etiquettes and other boundaries with are culturally acceptable. They are politcal animals from the get go. Why? Because humans are social creatures from the get go. The varying and increasing complexity of their political interactions is learned and built upon. But the rudiments are not. There's much writing on this in various philosophical and scientific circles. You seem to concentrate too much on this concept of survival instinct as if it is a singular construct. But for humans, the homo sapien, an advanced species, these things are a part of their survival instinct, not a later outcrop from it. Humans are intrinisically, innantely social creatures. That doesn't start at adolesence or some other arbitrary demarcation. It starts from the day they are born.

So then, you mean to tell me, a "blank slate" is atheism?

Interesting. On one hand you say I conveiently ignore theism. Well of course I do. A baby isn't born a theist nor do I make that claim. At the same time, or on the other hand, you state that because I'm a theist, I have a pre condition that doesn't allow me to see opposing views. That is of course untrue.

This discussion is simple really. If you wish to make a valid case other than a semantic one you only need to show that an isolated culture did not go on to conjure up a religion or other such fanciful myth (things they cannot prove but hold as true). That'll lend some creedence to your notion that the homo sapien is born atheist. Because what a homo sapien is born with will continue to be manifested to some degree, be it in a rudimentary or complex manner, as it matures.

So far all you've done is deny or obfuscate human intrinsic nature to dream up fanciful things and readily accept them more so on the whole than not, term a baby's "blank slate" condition as atheism, and add to the definition of atheism to also mean without religion in a sense that its more than a denial of religion from rational analysis or learned/communicated ideology.

Atheism is not at all simply non-religion in the sense of a "blank slate". Atheism is a counterpart to theism in that it ultimately addresses the same ultimate questions that exist within (and disquiet the mind of) every thinking person. Any worldview, religious or "non-religious", underlies universals of human life and living.

A baby is not yet capable of addressing such concerns but inately will as it matures because that is his innate propensity to do so. He doesn't learn to do it. He just does. And that's what makes the homo sapien quite a unique creature.

So you should leave the jury out on the question of "is a baby born atheist."

As a side note: I'm surprised an atheist would want to reduce all the hundreds of years of erudite atheist thought and ardent struggle in a world full of theists to include a dribbling, diaper wearing, helpless, low cognitive skilled infant among its ranks. Think about it. if one presses that atheism is best for humankind, and if babies are thought to be born atheist, humankind's only hope is to stay infants. I know that sounds funny. But ultimately, to an atheist who upholds the notion that babies are born atheist, the human baby is the ideal human being.

 

What a cop out.

Anyone who wants to know just how much of a cop out this truly is should review Z's threads on Intelligent Design and Creationism, and check out how his assertions have morphed over the last 18 months. I guess you have to change your tune when you get hammered into the ground as far as he has been.

Reading Z's posts is like watching a car accident happen over and over and over...