Well I guess you should be a little more clear about your ideas. Children are not atheists in any sense of the word. They already believe in God and the supernatural. It is not at all hard for them to believe in angels, Heaven and Hell… It is hard for them to believe in nothing, you atheist.Exactly my point. And children automatically believe what they are told. Tooth fairy, gods and monsters, Santa, they are a tabula rasa on which you can write anything at all. And yes, that would include not believing in things.
Maybe I should have written ‘effectively’ an atheist when referring to young children, but I was expecting people to understand the point I was making. And those who know me well enough would be fully aware that I have previously made the point that you can’t self declare as a Christian or an atheist until you have reached whatever you might consider to be the age of reason.
I think the theoretically “blank” child would be more of an ignostic. Or “theological non-cognitivist”.Exactly my point. And children automatically believe what they are told. Tooth fairy, gods and monsters, Santa, they are a tabula rasa on which you can write anything at all. And yes, that would include not believing in things.
Maybe I should have written ‘effectively’ an atheist when referring to young children, but I was expecting people to understand the point I was making. And those who know me well enough would be fully aware that I have previously made the point that you can’t self declare as a Christian or an atheist until you have reached whatever you might consider to be the age of reason.
Bill Gates would be as bemused as I am at a remark such as that. And I’m pretty certain that the guy in the Vatican is no friend of capitalism.Wrong - they trust the socialist State. That is their answer to everything.
Also, you can teach them the fairy tale that it’s possible for something to pop up from nothing.No one ought to disagree with this.
But you also need to include:
-George Washington was the first president of the US
-if you touch a hot stove you will burn yourself
-if you ride a bike, you’re better protected with a helmet.
Tabula rasa.
I’ll go with that. But the point remains, despite what some people seem to think. You are not born with an innate sense of any particular god. You need to be taught about Buddha or God or Shiva or Banaitja or any of the pantheon of gods.I think the theoretically “blank” child would be more of an ignostic. Or “theological non-cognitivist”.
Which are not precisely the same as “atheist”.
Oh, come on…Your point rings true with any one particular god, but the emergence of religion hand-in-hand with civilization itself does lend some support for the concept of the metaphysical. If not as an end, then certainly as an important means.
I would run with this line of thought as well. We relate to God in terms of what we are taught about God.I’ll go with that. But the point remains, despite what some people seem to think. You are not born with an innate sense of any particular god. You need to be taught about Buddha or God or Shiva or Banaitja or any of the pantheon of gods.
And a synonym of radical is extremist.I have been arguing on this thread one can be a radical anything.
*I don’t see anywhere here where it says people were bombed in the name of Jesus.
Except the encyclopedia says otherwise, and the Troubles is called a sectarian conflict meaning between sects. One side didn’t recruit Protestants because Protestants bombed Catholic bars, and vice versa, and neither side bombed atheist bars. Neither side thought for one moment that God was against them, they both believed God was with them, as in that famous Bob Dylan song With God on Our Side.The civil war in Northern Ireland was fought between Irish nationalists who wanted a united Ireland, and unionists who wanted to remain part of the UK. No one was bombed in the name of Jesus.*
Yes–this has been oft repeated on this thread.
Fundamentalism (and radicalism) is not limited to only religion.
Once again…
A Fundamentalists is someone who:
Thing is, we can all google the correct definition of fundamentalist and see it has nothing whatsoever to do with virtually anything you said.
- Is recusant to reason
- Is obdurate about their opinions
- …]
Luckily your credibility was instantly restored when you posted that picture of a cute puppy.
Radicals can be extremists - yes.And a synonym of radical is extremist.
This is nonsense. A minority of Protestant fundamentalists believed Catholics should not rule Protestants, but even Protestant fundamentalists did not condone bombing Catholic bars.Except the encyclopedia says otherwise, and the Troubles is called a sectarian conflict meaning between sects. One side didn’t recruit Protestants because Protestants bombed Catholic bars, and vice versa, and neither side bombed atheist bars. Neither side thought for one moment that God was against them, they both believed God was with them, as in that famous Bob Dylan song With God on Our Side.
So who said he was?Sure, we could claim that No True Christian would have bombed bars. Stereotypes make life much simpler, but they divide. So to accept your point, if Jesus wasn’t in that then Jesus can’t be in stereotyping all fundamentalists and all atheists either.
The idea of God didn’t come from nowhere. Less modern cultures experience, live with and worship the living God. Just because some modern men have stopped believing in God doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. It just means they think they can do without him, thank you very much. Until…Your point rings true with any one particular god, but the emergence of religion hand-in-hand with civilization itself does lend some support for the concept of the metaphysical. If not as an end, then certainly as an important means.
Children are born believers in God:Exactly my point. And children automatically believe what they are told. Tooth fairy, gods and monsters, Santa, they are a tabula rasa on which you can write anything at all. And yes, that would include not believing in things.
Maybe I should have written ‘effectively’ an atheist when referring to young children, but I was expecting people to understand the point I was making. And those who know me well enough would be fully aware that I have previously made the point that you can’t self declare as a Christian or an atheist until you have reached whatever you might consider to be the age of reason.
I think you’re tilting at leaves here. That’s basically all that was said there.Oh, come on…
It lends support to the undeniable need for religion.
I would strongly disagree here. Particulars notwithstanding (like red dots on foreheads and genuflections), the behavioral mores largely reflect one another under the broader, less fanatical lens. I was amazed at all I had in common with the Japanese folks I visited that largely eschew Christianity.Of that there is no doubt. It lends zero support for any indication that any of the tens of thousands of religions are in any way an accurate reflection of life and its meaning. None whatsoever.
Respectfully, it seems you’re largely no exception.A point to which everyone who ever existed would almost certainly agree, with the invariable rider: ‘…oh, except mine, of course’.
I would largely agree.The idea of God didn’t come from nowhere. Less modern cultures experience, live with and worship the living God. Just because some modern men have stopped believing in God doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. It just means they think they can do without him, thank you very much. Until…
I mean, even if you invoke the divine, you still get “arbitrary pockets of belief that have difficulty homogenizing society” (e.g. in Israel/Palestine, or the Inquisition).I would largely agree.
The question of “what ought?” as it pertains to human behavior is best answered with an appeal to the divine. Else we have individual, arbitrary pockets of belief that have difficulty homogenizing society in a way where it can progress together under some moral scheme.
Without it, law isn’t sacrosanct. It’s more like a perpetual cost-benefit analysis where your possible gain is measured against the odds of negatively experiencing the might of the state.
You do realize that this is something that atheists do, also, yes?And in most cases, that question is answered with a cost/benefit analysis
Yes. I am perfectly comfortable with cost benefit analysis playing a role in morality. I am pointing out that appeal to divine is not a way to avoid cost/benefit thinking.You do realize that this is something that atheists do, also, yes?
You’re totally right. The “which god is it?” problem is real.I mean, even if you invoke the divine, you still get “arbitrary pockets of belief that have difficulty homogenizing society” (e.g. in Israel/Palestine, or the Inquisition).
And even if you invoke the divine, you still have to ask yourself “why should I do what the divine says I should do?” And in most cases, that question is answered with a cost/benefit analysis (e.g. God wants what is best for you, or God will punish you if you don’t)
Fair enough.Yes. I am perfectly comfortable with cost benefit analysis playing a role in morality. I am pointing out that appeal to divine is not a way to avoid cost/benefit thinking.