Religion

cbayer

(146,218 posts)

123. Well, that's most unfortunate.

Sat Jun 14, 2014, 03:27 PM

Jun 2014

It really is great when the two sides can play.

He can put it however he wants and he can preach to his audience that they should challenge it whenever they see it, but most of the world understands it for what it is and many would like to see people, including children, from all faiths and no faiths, playing in the sandbox together.

It's much more gratifying than trying to make a crusade out of how they should or shouldn't be identified.

There is a stridency which becomes counter-productive, in which the goal seems only to alienate, that can occur within some movements.

Whether Dawkins is out of his venue or not is not the issue. Whether he can approach this venue as a scientist is.

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