Religion

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)

98. Okay.

Reply to LostOne4Ever (Reply #97)

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 04:11 AM

Jun 2014

Anything for you.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

130 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

There's no such thing as an atheist baby [View all] cbayer Jun 2014 OP

Thank you for this pure rubbish ...nt Trajan Jun 2014 #1

You are welcome. Thanks for stopping by. cbayer Jun 2014 #3

Pure rubbish is right yeoman6987 Jun 2014 #102

I think this is semantics. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jun 2014 #2

Babies are born with wonder. Who knows what they believe. cbayer Jun 2014 #4

But we are talking about a SPECIFIC belief, the belief in a god. cleanhippie Jun 2014 #14

yes, and no DonCoquixote Jun 2014 #104

you are mixing apples and oranges edhopper Jun 2014 #107

Define 'wonder'. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #42

Curiosity. cbayer Jun 2014 #43

In this case you probably do. rug Jun 2014 #44

I found it a rather odd question. cbayer Jun 2014 #45

You have an active belief that babies are born with wonder and curiousity. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #49

No, there is data to support it. I am sure you can find it... cbayer Jun 2014 #53

So you have no evidence to support your claim. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #58

Methinks just about everyone who has ever seen a baby... TreasonousBastard Jun 2014 #115

Sorry, but the person who makes the claim needs to back it up. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #130

Babies are born with a tendency to explore and learn... LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #76

But we don't know whether there wonder is there in a spiritual sense cbayer Jun 2014 #101

Making a statement about a baby having any edhopper Jun 2014 #108

Do you know what, if anything, he is responding to? cbayer Jun 2014 #109

watch this video edhopper Jun 2014 #110

My objection to his argument here is that he is comparing applies and oranges. cbayer Jun 2014 #112

People have been making all sorts of claims about babies' religious states LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #111

I just watched a video where Dawkins makes these really broad cbayer Jun 2014 #113

I haven't seen many claims that babies' are born religious cbayer Jun 2014 #116

On baptism LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #117

That site is a fundamentalist one with positions on lots of things I hope cbayer Jun 2014 #118

As an atheist, I disagree with both sites... LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #119

oh edhopper Jun 2014 #5

Agree. The whole argument is stupid, whether the claim cbayer Jun 2014 #7

That's not what's stupid in this article edhopper Jun 2014 #8

What do you find stupid about it, then? cbayer Jun 2014 #10

Religion is about belief edhopper Jun 2014 #11

Lol, what about the oinionhead article? cbayer Jun 2014 #12

OMG edhopper Jun 2014 #25

I agree, the op is stupid. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #51

You know I didn't write it, right? cbayer Jun 2014 #55

You posted it. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #60

Only if you insist on using a definition of "atheist" that you and the author promote. trotsky Jun 2014 #6

wow. this is an unusually idiotic argument. dawkins doesn't complain about the national identity unblock Jun 2014 #9

This author has previously made the argument that religiosity cbayer Jun 2014 #13

it is indeed inherited, they've done studies on identical twins separated at birth. unblock Jun 2014 #15

I was not aware of the twin studies, but that's really interesting. cbayer Jun 2014 #17

A propensity to tend towards such faith is certainly a part of the human condition for a vast AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #23

Horrible neo-presuppositionalist tripe Act_of_Reparation Jun 2014 #16

I guess the argument would be whether atheism is a passive or active position. cbayer Jun 2014 #18

Congratulations. trotsky Jun 2014 #20

One could probably consider anti-theism an active 'belief'. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #22

Perhaps an equally valid argument could be made that not-collecting stamps is a hobby. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2014 #24

The not collecting stamps argument is weak, imo. cbayer Jun 2014 #27

If stamp collectors made a point of having buildings erected specifically to congregate... trotsky Jun 2014 #28

It isn't weak at all. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2014 #33

Sorry, I have a completely different position when it comes to agnosticism cbayer Jun 2014 #36

You can call it whatever you want. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2014 #38

I agree that he is not proposing an innate belief in god and cbayer Jun 2014 #40

That's not what Dawkins said at all. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2014 #47

You should know by now that what Richard Dawkins actually *says* is irrelevant. trotsky Jun 2014 #50

I was commenting more about his recent interview about children and fairy tales. cbayer Jun 2014 #52

I might have Act_of_Reparation Jun 2014 #59

Yes, that is the quote that has caused the most recent kerfuffle. cbayer Jun 2014 #61

I have to go with how the word is defined. Act_of_Reparation Jun 2014 #70

Don't want to quibble about this for too long, but do you have kids? cbayer Jun 2014 #100

But atheism is a religion, isn't it? trotsky Jun 2014 #19

Oh what a crock of complete and utter nonsense. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #21

Of course if a baby is never told anything about superstitious nonsense or gods randys1 Jun 2014 #26

How can you be so sure of that? cbayer Jun 2014 #29

Exactly, at some point an adult made up a lie like the Mormon church founder randys1 Jun 2014 #30

Again, I think the assumption that an adult made up a lie may cbayer Jun 2014 #31

On a side note, I have msnbc on and Iraq is in chaos randys1 Jun 2014 #32

I'm not making the argument that religion is not responsible for some bad things. cbayer Jun 2014 #34

There may be some help from churches but the vast majority of help is from the govt...and should be randys1 Jun 2014 #35

And I never said that the government doesn't provide assistance, only that cbayer Jun 2014 #37

You should also take a look at the funding sources of the religious groups. trotsky Jun 2014 #41

I checked the data, inadvertantly posted to this 2012 thread - pinto Jun 2014 #63

Good for you! trotsky Jun 2014 #64

Perhaps the catholc charities organization could provide services cheaper than the govt could. pinto Jun 2014 #65

That's a fascinating theory. trotsky Jun 2014 #66

Here's one example, via charitynavigator.org. pinto Jun 2014 #68

Fascinating data. trotsky Jun 2014 #69

This points out one thing: atheism is a meaningless concept absent theism. rug Jun 2014 #39

lolwhut AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #71

It's basic dialectics. rug Jun 2014 #72

It is. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #74

Now your last line would be an example of dialectics. rug Jun 2014 #77

I was an atheist baby. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #46

Excuse me? cbayer Jun 2014 #48

Is my post unclear? beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #54

Not going to deal with your hostility. cbayer Jun 2014 #56

Just two words for you, bmus: trotsky Jun 2014 #57

I learned from the best! beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #62

Different people use different definitions for the word "atheist." ZombieHorde Jun 2014 #67

While I support what you are saying, I disagree with your assumptions about cbayer Jun 2014 #103

I guess this is within the realm of sociology. ZombieHorde Jun 2014 #129

Babies do not have a concept of religion yet... LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #73

Then what are they? AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #75

No, there are not 'only two possibilities' LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #78

Gnostic/agnostic are about knowledge. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #79

'Atheist' means that you believe that there isn't a god LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #81

No, one can be an athiest and also hold a positive belief that there is no god. AtheistCrusader Jun 2014 #82

I am an atheist and I have no concept of god. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #83

Obviously I don't know and have no right to describe exactly what you as an individual believe... LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #88

Political affiliation is different than atheism. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #89

I was describing MY OWN world view here! LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #90

PS to say more where I'm coming from, here is a post from some time ago.. LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #91

That looked like a good time. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #94

Okay. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #93

Fine - I certainly was not trying to define/redefine atheism LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #99

No it does not LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #84

OK - but I still think that unawareness of a concept excludes either belief or disbelief LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #87

The point is not so much that we want to include all babies LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #92

I really like you. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #95

Thanks! LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #97

Okay. beam me up scottie Jun 2014 #98

If they do not have the concept of god LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #85

OK, but that is not the way that the word 'atheist' is generally used LeftishBrit Jun 2014 #86

I can understand where you are coming from LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #96

This article's main argument rests on two assumptions LostOne4Ever Jun 2014 #80

I think that Dawkins DonCoquixote Jun 2014 #105

You should read his actual comments edhopper Jun 2014 #106

But he is making broad sociological judgements and no cbayer Jun 2014 #114

So you think edhopper Jun 2014 #120

No, particularly if this were happening in a particularly contentious part of Israel, say. cbayer Jun 2014 #121

Yes edhopper Jun 2014 #122

Well, that's most unfortunate. cbayer Jun 2014 #123

This message was self-deleted by its author edhopper Jun 2014 #124

This is not contempt, it's criticism. cbayer Jun 2014 #125

Okay edhopper Jun 2014 #126

I think that's an agreeable point to disagree on, edhopper. cbayer Jun 2014 #127

have a good edhopper Jun 2014 #128