[moved from C&E] Religions call people Atheists.

[Naraoia]

There have been a few cases of children being raised in the wild without parents. So from that we can in fact know what people are like without culture.

Were any of these kids even able to talk about their stance on religion?

(Besides, what were their exact circumstances? I somehow doubt that a human infant left out in the middle of nowhere would stand a massive chance of growing up)

Through anthropology i think its quite possible for us to know. To add on to this, Anthropology is a science and can be used to answer these questions.

Sure can be a science, though I'm not sure how easily it can answer such questions.

I think humans desire to explain what they dont understand and tend to fill in the gaps. I dont think this is religious but i think religion was born from this.

"You think" or you have evidence? I actually kind of agree, but seeing as you've just talked about science...

People also wish to be accepted into social structures because we are social animals. Again i don't think this is religion but tends to foster religion.

But it can "foster" religion in several different ways. It can cause a selective pressure for minds predisposed to religion to evolve (for example, like this). Or it can mean that if someone invents religion and has enough influence, it'll spread by solely cultural means. How do you tell the difference?

A child will not become religious unless it is pointed at religion because a child would not know what religion was or what it was for.

I've already discussed this at length in my exchange with Moonlancer. How do you know?

Why would anyone seek out religion unless they felt a need for companionship, comfort or forgiveness? all of which can be got from friends, have no friends? then they need to go find a religion.

Oh, personal incredulity with a sprinkle of disdain. How consolian.

Is it because you are a soft Atheist, one who is open to accepting religion?

More like I try to exercise my critical thinking muscles on everyone, not just the "bad guys". Plus I just don't particularly mind if other people are religious, and don't see the point in arguing about gods.

I don't see much chance of myself joining them, to be honest. Quite a few years ago, I realised how easy it is to delude myself, and I've never been able to believe ever since.

 

[AllOrNothing]

If there were no religions there would be no Atheists because not believing in a god is the default state..

And your evidence is... ?

On the other hand.. you may also wish to claim that not believing earth goes round the sun is a default state too..

Does that somehow make the statement untrue..?

As for the world being flat.. let's not go there.. I live in the Netherlands.. and its perfectly obvious.

People bring forward their religions and when ANYONE disagrees with that religion they are branded as Atheists..?.

I agree with Buddhism.. and I agree with the Bible.. bearing in mind its conclusion.. that is.

But I don't agree with the Koran.. because it diverges greatly from the aforementioned... meaning.. Loving kindness.. Righteousness.. Justice.. Peace.. Wisdom.. Freedom and Truth.. are not central to it agenda.

However.. does not agreeing with the Koran make me an atheist.. ?

Anyway.. what do you mean by - religion ?

It is one of those words that people can define differently…. I define it as meaning – to reunite

EVERYONE in this world is an Atheist to some degree.?.

Ah.. that sounds like the Dawkin's delusion..

And your evidence is... ?

Please give me your own definition of - theist

I'm interested to know what you mean by it.

Then we can continue.

If you don't like the word Atheist what would you call someone who doesn't believe in your religion?.

Power junkie.. control freak.. corrupt politician.. the list goes on.

If you disagree with these statements please tell us why.

It's a matter of semantics..

---

“Like all philosophers, Aristotle gives words the definitions which will be most useful for his own purpose.”
C.S Lewis

 

[Naraoia]

But I come here and I see intelligence is measured by how strong an atheist one is.

I seem to recall several agnostics and theists that I think are/were generally regarded as intellingent here (Bombila, sfs, Cabal...). Anyone on the evolution side, feel free to pipe up if you disagree.

And if anyone tries to measure my intelligence with the strength of my atheism, I might want to have a word with them

 

[Doveaman]

Sorry, guys, but the default human position is not, as has been proposed here, atheism, but is in fact theism. We, the human race, homo sapiens, have an inbuilt inclination to believe in gods. Every human population on earth whose culture we know anything about has had a religion of some sort and gods of various kinds.

If this is the case, shouldn't this be considered empirical evidence for the existence of a god or gods?

Why would evolution produce an inbuilt inclination to believe in gods? Could it be because evolution itself is an act of god?

 

[CatholicForSure]

If there were no religions there would be no Atheists because not believing in a god is the default state.
People bring forward their religions and when ANYONE disagrees with that religion they are branded as Atheists.
EVERYONE in this world is an Atheist to some degree.
If you don't like the word Atheist what would you call someone who doesn't believe in your religion?

If you disagree with these statements please tell us why.

A- is part of the English language, meaning "Not".

Things can be symetrical or asymetrical; typical or atypical

Theism is a belief in god or gods. Monotheism is belief in One God. Atheism is no belief in God.

It has nothing to do with "religions". It has to do with understanding the English language

 

[Naraoia]

If this is the case, shouldn't this be considered empirical evidence for the existence of a god or gods?

Not necessarily. We are predisposed to see many things that ain't there.

Why would evolution produce an inbuilt inclination to believe in gods? Could it be because evolution itself is an act of god?

Or that belief in gods is a byproduct of perfectly useful cognitive abilities. Or that belief in gods itself provides a selective advantage for whatever reason. Or a combination of both. Oh, of course, your hypothesis is a possibility. But there are alternatives, and in all likelihood, many of them are more testable than yours.

 

[Tomatoman]

If this is the case, shouldn't this be considered empirical evidence for the existence of a god or gods?

Why would evolution produce an inbuilt inclination to believe in gods? Could it be because evolution itself is an act of god?

Not really, no. (Yes, I know you're trying to tease me.)

I did try and explain the inbuilt inclination as I understand it, although probably not very well. It is to do with what our brains and minds have evolved to do. Putting it as succinctly as I know how, our conscious mind is primarily an instrument for social interaction with other humans. Everything else extends from that.

Basically, once you have grasped that our minds evolved, and evolved to do specific things, everything else starts to make sense. (It explains everything from your sexual fantasies to your annoyance that your neighbour has a better car than you. And a lot more besides.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheism is no belief in God.

I disagree -- it's the suffix that counts as well; not just the prefix.

Just like asymmetrical means 'no symmetry', atheism means the belief that there is no God.

 

[Naraoia]

I disagree -- it's the suffix that counts as well; not just the prefix.

Just like asymmetrical means 'no symmetry', atheism means the belief that there is no God.

The suffix is already part of theism, which means "belief in god(s)".

Stick a negative prefix on it, and you get a-theism, "no belief in god(s)".

 

[AV1611VET]

The suffix is already part of theism, which means "belief in god(s)".

Stick a negative prefix on it, and you get a-theism, "no belief in god(s)".

You're applying the prefix to the suffix and saying a-the[os]-ism means a - ism means "no belief".

That's where I disagree.

It's not 'no belief in God' -- it's 'belief in no God'.

 

[Tomatoman]

You're applying the prefix to the suffix and saying a-the[os]-ism means a - ism means "no belief".

That's where I disagree.

It's not 'no belief in God' -- it's 'belief in no God'.

Belief in no god doesn't mean anything.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Belief in no god doesn't mean anything.

It means the belief that there is no god, just as 'belief in god' is shorthand for 'belief that there is a god'.

 

[Tomatoman]

It means the belief that there is no god, just as 'belief in god' is shorthand for 'belief that there is a god'.

I don't believe in Father Christmas. I believe in no Father Christmas.

I do believe that AV is trying to change the subject.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't believe in Father Christmas. I believe in no Father Christmas.

I do believe that AV is trying to change the subject.

I'm still confused why a thread on the semantics of the word 'atheist' is in the Creation&Evolution forum...

 

[Delphiki]

"Belief in no God" is actively believing there isn't a God. In other words, worshiping, praying, or some kind of ritualistic activity or thought in regards to there being no god(s).

"Not believing in God" is total inaction or apathy in regards to deities.

That's the difference.

I think you'll find the prior to be a but silly, and I've never met any atheist (that I'm aware of) that "believes in no god".

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm still confused why a thread on the semantics of the word 'atheist' is in the Creation&Evolution forum...

Because it's not much of a forum without Creationists, and semantics are the only thing they're good at these days.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Because it's not much of a forum without Creationists, and semantics are the only thing they're good at these days.

Rebranding Creationism as 'ID' and splattering their buildings with the buzz words like 'Science' and 'Discovery' were cunning moves, but I wouldn't say they were good at such semantics

 

[Naraoia]

You're applying the prefix to the suffix and saying a-the[os]-ism means a - ism means "no belief".

That's where I disagree.

It's not 'no belief in God' -- it's 'belief in no God'.

I guess it could be interpreted either way.

I'm afraid that you don't get to tell atheists what their atheism means, though.

Belief in no god doesn't mean anything.

In some universes, it is highly advisable to, in fact, believe in the No-God.

(But I'm not sure there's a god, yes- or no-, that could make me read the rest of that series )

 

[Nathan Poe]

Rebranding Creationism as 'ID' and splattering their buildings with the buzz words like 'Science' and 'Discovery' were cunning moves, but I wouldn't say they were good at such semantics

True, true -- I should've said good for, not good at.

 

[badtim]

Rebranding Creationism as 'ID' and splattering their buildings with the buzz words like 'Science' and 'Discovery' were cunning moves, but I wouldn't say they were good at such semantics

they're also no good at covering their tracks, defending their beliefs on the stand, or telling consistent truth, as clearly shown in Kitzmiller.