ZERO Tolerance - religious V non religious

WRONG, athiest is 'NOT having no religion' as you define it, becuase I have NO religion but I believe in God, athiest is a point of view and babies have no such point of view!

And no babies minds are far from being blank at birth, they can hear sounds outside of the womb and can indeed demonstrate recognition of them after birth.

Jews are born Jews whether the indoctrination porcess has begun, they would have to 'opt' out in later life if they did not want to be 'Jewish'.
Jesus was a Jew, he was born to a Jewish mother. I guess he opted out ay?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, so you are unable to identify what part of the above establishes you as an athiest think you are 'better' than the thiest? Note items highlighted in red and copied below:

"I think atheists are better than the religious because they make up a better society."

You then say
"That is a fact."

Prove that fact my 'special' friend.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

though I dont doubt, your right here.
however atheism is'nt a club, there is'nt a club house/church, if it was'nt for the internet, you would probably find they would just lead a peaceful life, the only time they would debate religion would be, when out socialising, or talking to some religious person who knocked on the door to preach. atheism is a byproduct of education, as such any peace loving analytical non-conformist, like groucho, could be thought of as athiest, whether he was or was'nt.

you clearly dont understand what an atheist is
dictionary.com defines at as,

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
however two points here, it's not a belief, so there cannot be any disbelief, and there cannot be be any denial, for to deny something you must first believe it exists.

encarta defines it as, unbelief in God or deities.

so you see you are wrong, no baby is ever born with a belief in a god.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

eh talk about contradicting yourself, dictionary says DISBELIEF in God, then you say there cannot be disbelief, so you are contradicting dictionary definition, I think you are confused.

I never said babies were born with a belief in God? I said they were not born with a disbelief in God, which is entirely different.

Babies have no concept of 'God' when they are born (we assume??) so they can neither believe nor disbelieve. Disbelieving in something is a 'choice' an 'opinion'. Thus without a concept of God, we would have no such opinion, babies are therefore NOT born athiests.

You have a label 'athiest' becuase you believe in the non existance of God.

 

http://www.focusmagazine.org/Articles/bornatheists.htm

from above link:
"Born Atheists?
Doy Moyer

William Edelen, a former professor of religious studies and anthropology, wrote a commentary article in a Palm Springs, California newspaper under the title, "We’re all born atheists and brainwashed to believe." In the article, he argues that if we were really "born again," then we would all return to atheism because "that is the way we were born the first time around." He says that every baby born into this world has no belief in "god, goddesses, Jesus, Buddha, Lao-Tzu, Shiva or anything else until such time as we brainwash, indoctrinate, threaten or coerce them into some adult belief system, the same one usually that we were brainwashed into as children." He continues:

"Through acculturation, we become something other than what we were at birth. That is the definition of atheism. The only reason that you are a Christian is because you were born in America."

He continues throughout the article in a similar vein, charging that "religious belief systems are only an accident of birth." He thinks that the "Christian myth" will soon die out, and concludes: "The resurrection of a free human spirit from this dying monolith will turn out to be one of the most significant events in the history of civilization. Like the Phoenix, the spiritually free will rise alive from the ashes."

Mr. Edelen has a few problems with his own "belief system." Setting aside his misconception about being "born again" (i.e., not a return to what we were but an entrance into an entirely new life), I challenge his concept of atheism. Atheism is not so passive as Mr. Edelen tries to make it sound. Atheism is not having no belief at all; atheism is an active belief that there is no God. Babies are not atheists; they are just ignorant. They have no beliefs in anything whatsoever because they have not developed the capacity to think and reason. If Mr. Edelen’s article says much at all, it’s consequence is that a return to atheism is a return to ignorance, since that’s what babies really are. I don’t think he would want to accept that conclusion. But it’s only logical.

From what he says, atheism is becoming something other than what we were at birth through acculturation. Huh? Again, what we are at birth is ignorant. Now I wonder if Mr. Edelen teaches anyone that there is no God. If so, is he also guilty of the acculturation, brainwashing, indoctrination, or coercion with which he charges everyone else who believes in something?
He argues that the "only reason" anyone is a Christian is because of this acculturation. Children come to believe in whatever their parents teach them. But if Mr. Edelen is correct in the idea that there is no God, then would he not have to admit that there was a time when someone, somewhere first believed in God without being taught it by parents? If so, what was the "only reason" that this person became a theist? And I doubt he or she was born in America.

It’s also very poor scholarship to suggest that the "only reason" anyone is a Christian is due to being "born in America." That’s not a very scientific statement. Now I would agree that many people are what they are religiously because they have been "born" into a family with this religion. But to suggest that this is true of everyone? I don’t think I’d have to travel very far to find someone who can disprove that. I wonder if he would appreciate the statement that the "only reason" he or anyone else is an atheist is because they have been indoctrinated by atheists who tell them that smart people are atheists.

There is a subtle suggestion that Christians have no real minds of their own; they have blind faith and no evidence to back up their beliefs. That’s another article, though. It’s interesting that he accepts things that supposedly happened 150,000 years ago, even though there are no documents, eyewitnesses, or anything else to back it all up, but then calls something a "myth" that has plenty of historical evidences, including eyewitnesses and early documents. What was that proverb about the legs of the lame? By the way, I wonder if he would call macroevolutionary theory a myth? Think there’s any "brainwashing" going on there?

Mr. Edelen would probably not admit it, but atheists also have a religious belief system. It’s called secular humanism. Atheists deny it’s a religion, but then watch them turn around and defend it with ardor and zeal, trying to "evangelize" people into believing that there is no God. That’s what his article is doing. He’ll avoid religious-sounding terms (e.g., "think" instead of "believe"), but this is just playing around with words to avoid the undeniable consequences. The god of atheism is just materialistic instead of spiritual.

In the end, Mr. Edelen’s article is an attempt to coerce people into believing there is no God; after all, only brainwashed people believe in God. I guess we just don’t get it, do we? Shouldn’t we have figured out by now that only intelligent people are atheists while everyone else is brainwashed and enslaved? I guess he’s enlightened.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse ... Professing to be wise, they became fools"

I don't agree with all this but it does relate to our chat, babies are ignorant in believing or not believing. Meanwhile where can you go in the world where they have no belief in a divine power of some sort? Where do these people reside? Even tribal peoples untouched by civilisation have a belief system...where did it come from...who indoctrinated them?

 

Read my post again - I put quotes around "atheists are better" because your origional post was stating that atheists thought they were better or special... So in a way I was making fun of you... This went over your head.

Well for the 100th time I will repeat what I have said on this forum before about this. Or you could read my posts going back several weeks or months. Or find the thread "most americans will be non christians by 2035. Failing that I'll do it myself after work.

 

If its that important to you?

meanwhile
"most americans will be non christians by 2035" so someone planning on 'converting' them all the atheism? lol, belief in devine power has been around too long for a small bunch of non believers to 'convert' anyone. Ask yourself why it is so important your opinion is the majority one? Why??

 

How old are you?

You have made the assumption before even looking or waiting for me to tell you? No, nobody is planning to convert everyone to atheism. From memory it talks about how Christianity and church attentance is on the decline while other faiths and atheism are growing. But in the same thread there is another article that shows statistics of percentage of atheism in most countries in the world. And if you had bothered to look at it you'd see that the countries with the higher percentage of atheism has better social health and less war torn.

The statistics say that a better society and levels of atheism are linked.

 

What statistics? Meanwhile anyone can maniupulate statistics, they ARE NOT facts! You said it is fact atheists are better and healthier??? Prove it! Where are your FACTS?

link on statistic corruption
http://www.unsafescience.com/corrupt.html

 

no not contradicing myself, just pointing out the error that dictionary.com has printed, the first definition does not capture atheism, which is based on an indifference to the issue of God's existence, (which is what babies are born with) the second statement is closer, The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
most dictionaries get it wrong, because they were originally written and printed by theists.

could you explain to the layman what the opposite of belief is or what the opposite of disbelief is.
and no you actually said,

wrong, atheism is anti-theism, without god, babies are born without any knowledge of god. therefore anti-theist. you clearly have no idea what your talking about.

but here you quite clearly contradict yourself.

make your mind up.

but they are as they are born anti-theist, without god, as they are without god, then they have no knowledge of gods or god.

no I have the label atheist, because there are no such thing as gods, devils, fairys, unicorns, and pink polka dotted elephants wearing roller skates, etc, etc, etc.

 

1) Prove there are/is no God/s
2) Babies are NOT born atheist as atheism is an 'opinion', and babies have no such opinions.

Not having any knowledge of God's or any understanding in order to aquire this label, does not make you athiest.

Note this was quoted from official athiest website;
"Who are the athiests? | What do athiests believe in? | Is athiesm right for me?

Athiesm is a common spelling mistake
The word is ATHEISM. From a (without) and theos (god).

Atheism is the theory or belief that god does not exist.

http://mwillett.org/athiest.htm

a quote from another athiest website

""An Atheist loves himself and his fellow human instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that "heaven" is something for which we should work now -- here on earth -- for all people together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow human can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment.

Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities, nor can there be any. Nature simply exists. "

You are saying babies are born with all this innate philosophy?

 

i thought anti-theist is opposed to theism. like anti-establishment, anti-abortion, anti-dote, anti-war, anti-social.

being "anti-...." is being against a particfular group or person.

what you are talking about with babies is more like agnosticism.

 

the prefix "Anti-"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anti-

 

Anti-christ
+
Anti-christian
=
dont much like that as it gives the church the power to accuse those who hold christianity to the light of scrutiny.

 

If you read my passages above re babies and athiesm you will find that babies at birth are 'ignorant' AND not atheist!

".......Atheism is not having no belief at all; atheism is an active belief that there is no God. Babies are not atheists; they are just ignorant. They have no beliefs in anything whatsoever because they have not developed the capacity to think and reason. If Mr. Edelen’s article says much at all, it’s consequence is that a return to atheism is a return to ignorance, since that’s what babies really are. I don’t think he would want to accept that conclusion. But it’s only logical."

 

You have the label atheist because you BELIEVE there is no God, you cannot prove there is or is not...can you? Do it!

 

It's quite simple really, although the statistics may not have precise percentages of atheism/non believers the chart clearly shows what are considered more secular countries towards the top of the chart.

For instance, Scandinavian countries have extremely high levels of atheism in comparison to most other countries and their social security is amongst the best in the world. You also don't hear of Scandinavian countries starting wars in recent times do you? The rest of Western Europe, Japan, Austrailia etc are in pretty good shape despite the fact they are considered secular. Some of the most religious countries have trouble maintaining social order despite having the fear of God in them...

For now I wish you would simply read the article in the thread I pointed out. But for now you will have to wait till I get home from work as I have wasted enough of my breaks trying to get accross this obvious point.

 

What article in what thread, I see no links?

Meanwhile what a load of rubbish, the things about these countries may be true but in no way does it prove in any way shape or form its related to atheism! You may as well say blondes are better/healthier people! If most of them are blonde that is? Whatever their predominant hair colour is...irrelevant. Lots of predominantly religious countries don't war, just the bully, power seeking ones, so again no proof of anything there. Where is your proof that athiests are better /healthier people? proof, proof? links?

 

Neither. I suspect I understand nature.

 

you mean that it just luuuurves radiation