Is Atheism Learned, Innate, Both Or Neither?

[gall]

 

 

Atheism could be a belief learned from a society or family

 

So atheism could be a belief then... :-)

 

 

IMO we cannot prove that a god of some kind could not exist, so in that sense IMO atheism is a belief. One might respond to the statement that atheism is a belief by saying there is no evidence in your opinion (IYO) to support the existence of a god(s).  Usually they have a particular religion in mind so you might quote the odds of the possibility that the old, the new, or some other bible or testament might be true IYO, would be 1/1000, 1/1000,000, 1/1,000,000,000,000, 1/ 10^50, or greater -- that should shut them up concerning the meaning of atheism IYO or the possibilities of its validity.

 

 

for most atheist they do not believe god doesn't exist. They believe that all the nut jobs making claims that gods exist with zero proof of any of it other than their belief or word or faith are wrong and have no valid claim.

 

I am not saying there is no god. I am saying the proof provided there is one by those fronting it is bunk and wrong. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of if you make a claim bring proof or shut it.

 

Franky I could care less if their is a god.

 

If there is a god and he is the christian god I would never follow him even with proof he was real, if there is no god it really doesn't matter and I am better of just living my life. If there is some other god that just made this universe then stayed out of it he doesn't matter either as he would care less if we believed in it or not.

 

No matter how you slice it the belief in god is a waste of time. It doesn't matter that other think my atheism is a belief system, they can be mislead all they like into never understanding even themselves. I don't need to believe in anything to have a good life other than myself.

[mwc]

     What is "a god of some kind?"  What does that even mean?  There's a lot of presumption in that little fragment.

 

          mwc

[mymistake]

 

 

Atheism could be a belief learned from a society or family

 

So atheism could be a belief then... :-)

 

 

IMO we cannot prove that a god of some kind could not exist, so in that sense IMO atheism is a belief. One might respond to the statement that atheism is a belief by saying there is no evidence in your opinion (IYO) to support the existence of a god(s).  Usually they have a particular religion in mind so you might quote the odds of the possibility that the old, the new, or some other bible or testament might be true IYO, would be 1/1000, 1/1000,000, 1/1,000,000,000,000, 1/ 10^50, or greater -- that should shut them up concerning the meaning of atheism IYO or the possibilities of its validity.

 

 

 

In general atheism is a lack of a belief.  Do we group all the people who think Superman isn't real together and label them as believers?  Rather they are simply normal.  If we lived in a world that had not been conquered by religion then atheists would simply be normal.

 

Rather than making up odds I would cite the evidence that Superman is fictional character created by humans.  Movies, television shows and comic books have production materials.  These include story boards, rough drafts and early concept art.  Not all of them get shredded.  If you could salvage these items and assemble them all they would make a very strong case that Superman is a work of fiction.  You could even do the same for other super heroes and demonstrate that Superman follows a pattern within a genera of literature.

 

By the way, unlike most of the atheists here I am on the strong end of the atheist scale.  The above argument is exactly how we know that God is a work of fiction.  I don't need to visit every corner of the universe and test for God.  God was born in the imagination of humans.

[pantheory]

 

 

 

Atheism could be a belief learned from a society or family

 

So atheism could be a belief then... :-)

 

 

IMO we cannot prove that a god of some kind could not exist, so in that sense IMO atheism is a belief. One might respond to the statement that atheism is a belief by saying there is no evidence in your opinion (IYO) to support the existence of a god(s).  Usually they have a particular religion in mind so you might quote the odds of the possibility that the old, the new, or some other bible or testament might be true IYO, would be 1/1000, 1/1000,000, 1/1,000,000,000,000, 1/ 10^50, or greater -- that should shut them up concerning the meaning of atheism IYO or the possibilities of its validity.

 

 

for most atheist they do not believe god doesn't exist. They believe that all the nut jobs making claims that gods exist with zero proof of any of it other than their belief or word or faith are wrong and have no valid claim.

 

I am not saying there is no god. I am saying the proof provided there is one by those fronting it is bunk and wrong. It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of if you make a claim bring proof or shut it.

 

Franky I could care less if their is a god.

 

If there is a god and he is the christian god I would never follow him even with proof he was real, if there is no god it really doesn't matter and I am better of just living my life. If there is some other god that just made this universe then stayed out of it he doesn't matter either as he would care less if we believed in it or not.

 

No matter how you slice it the belief in god is a waste of time. It doesn't matter that other think my atheism is a belief system, they can be mislead all they like into never understanding even themselves. I don't need to believe in anything to have a good life other than myself.

 

 

I was thinking that atheists are a little more definite that god does not exist, but you are probably right. Most atheists are just saying that the god of the bible is highly unlikely because of the lack of evidence. It would seem that there are as many degrees of a belief in atheism as there are degrees of certainty concerning religion. As for me I believe there is about as much likelihood for the god of the bible as there is for Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the tooth fairy, Superman, etc.

 

When it comes to "belief" in atheism,  my opinion is that it is just a discussion of semantics without merit..

[Joshpantera]

I addressed this in the other thread by presenting: The Primacy of Atheism

 

I'm speaking from the platform of an ex-Christian of now 26 years who has poured over the debate of belief and disbelief during that time. I know all to well where this path leads in the end. So bare with me as I proceed. First of all, the idea that atheism is the belief that no Gods exist or a positive belief at all is a blatant misrepresentation raised by theists against atheism!

 

Most of you know this, however since it was claimed earlier I feel the need to punch the claim square in the jaw. That's the very misconception that the atheist organizations have been fighting to change. The hard definition is not favored, the soft definition is what they want exposed to the public. And they have sought to change and correct incorrect and false representations of atheism. 

 

Not God belief or lack of God belief is the only acceptable definition that the organizations will adhere to. So Storm correctly defined it in the opening post. 

 

Now, since what we're talking about is agnostic atheism, not knowing if Gods exist and through not knowing necessarily lacking positive belief in the existence of Gods, we are quite frankly born agnostic atheists establishing the "Primacy of Atheism." This is important because in order to combat the general state of ignorance concerning atheism and theistic misrepresentation, everyone needs to learn to stick to the accepted definition as Not God belief or lack of God belief which are literally the definition of a(not) theism(God belief). This keeps misconceptions from circulating into the future. 

 

Atheism doesn't need to be learned because it describes a lack of positive belief. It can be learned, but doesn't have to be. 

 

The idea that we're born agnostic atheist's is by all means a sound claim because of our lacking the understanding to be otherwise, to have a positive belief in Gods one way or the other. To try and twist this fact around by altering the definition of atheism does a disservice to the point of keeping the correct soft or negative definition in circulation. 

 

Some one may decide to become a gnostic atheist later in life, claiming to know that God's don't exist. But this wouldn't be a young child expressing that sort of positive belief which requires a burden of proof. Learned atheists, by the way, are not gnostic atheists for that reason - they know that you can not prove that Gods, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or the flying spaghetti monster do not exist. Gnostic atheism is based in inexperience and ignorance concerning the debate. So by my saying that atheism is primary in no way, shape, or form means gnostic atheism, which is really misrepresentation of atheism. 

 

An agnostic atheist can be a young child who hasn't yet developed positive belief in Gods or a teen or adult who reached the intellectual conclusion that due to the lack of evidence for positive God claims, or the unlikely hood, they ought to default to "not God belief" until such time that credible evidence is established. It really needs to get to the point where this debate about what atheism is has taken over the web to where no one is unfamiliar with how it goes and where it ends.  

 

To answer the question, lack of God belief is both innate and learned for the specific reasons I've given. 

[pantheory]

     What is "a god of some kind?"  What does that even mean?  There's a lot of presumption in that little fragment.

 

          mwc

 

"a god of some kind."

 

What I meant by this statement is that there seemingly would be a higher likelihood for "a god of some kind" creating the universe and not be involved with it thereafter, than there would be for a god that is interested in mankind and listens to prayers: some might arbitrarily say one in a million compared to one in a sextillion (10^21) -- a minimal possibility compared to a general impossibility.

[mymistake]

 

     What is "a god of some kind?"  What does that even mean?  There's a lot of presumption in that little fragment.

 

          mwc

 

"a god of some kind."

 

What I meant by this statement is that there seemingly would be a higher likelihood for "a god of some kind" creating the universe and not be involved with it thereafter, than there would be for a god that is interested in mankind and listens to prayers: some might arbitrarily say one in a million compared to one in a sextillion (10^21) -- a minimal possibility compared to a general impossibility.

 

 

 

So if our universe did not have a creator then there is no god of any kind?  It doesn't have an obvious purpose and it may have always existed.

 

Our universe is a big and very old place with phenomenon that are strange to our primate brains.  Somewhere out there perhaps there are creatures with traits similar to what humans called etherealness.  But if that is true this does not make gods real.  It would only be a coincidence.

 

Statistically we can rest assured that there is no superior being listening to prayer and giving special benefits to any major religion.  The numbers would have been different if that were the case. 

[Lucy]

When we are very young we believe everything our parents tell us without question. We are at their mercy. It isn't until we're older that we start to realize parents can lie to us and that parents can be wrong. We are born with an innate trust in authority and our logic defaults to "appeal to authority" arguments. A parental opinion trumps all other logic. If "other people" disagree with your parents, you will still think your parents are right.

 

Most of us brought up in a religious home are raised to believe in our parents' god. This belief begins before the brain even starts to form long term memories. I remember Bible lessons from my youth. I don't recall not knowing the material in the lessons. It was all repeats at the point I start to have long term  memories. I have no memory of someone sitting me down and explaining to me that god exists. It was just a constant and a known fact that was without question. I don't recall not knowing it. The whole idea that there might not be a god was something I learned much later.

 

Someone raised this way would find the whole idea of atheism shocking and strange. "Some don't believe? How? Everybody knows there is a god!" If you're raised surrounded by people with the same beliefs as you, you think everybody agrees on the same things. Most children haven't been exposed to enough of the world to see lots of people disagree. Using "everybody knows" logic is something that I think is innate and a phase children will all go through since most of the adults they will have been exposed to are probably in the same social circles and probably all agree with each other on most topics. As you mature you eventually learn that just because "everybody knows" something doesn't mean it is true.

 

 

There is a definite difference in someone who was raised areligious and ends up atheist just because no on ever tried to force a religious belief on them and someone who was Christian at such an early age they don't recall not knowing Christianity who then later decides their whole worldview is wrong and ends up an atheist. (sorry for run on sentence)

 

 

I think our innate sense is to just begin our lives with full trust of our parents. At the point of which we begin to form long term memories our beliefs will match with whatever our parents teach us in our pre-long term memory phase. I give parents both credit and blame for long term ideas formed in this phase of development.

 

If I try to think of my earliest memories. I don't recall not being a Christian. I know I was born without belief. The physical "me" was born agnostic atheist by default. The current "me" as a stream of consciousness began life around 3 or 4 years old and was already a Christian. I wasn't a super knowledgeable Christian, but I was a Christian to the full extent that my mental capacity would allow. This sort of early childhood amnesia makes it difficult to claim an "innate" belief. A lot of beliefs have begun to form before the phase of "childhood amnesia" ends.

[pantheory]

 

 

     What is "a god of some kind?"  What does that even mean?  There's a lot of presumption in that little fragment.

 

          mwc

 

"a god of some kind."

 

What I meant by this statement is that there seemingly would be a higher likelihood for "a god of some kind" creating the universe and not be involved with it thereafter, than there would be for a god that is interested in mankind and listens to prayers: some might arbitrarily say one in a million compared to one in a sextillion (10^21) -- a minimal possibility compared to a general impossibility.

 

 

 

So if our universe did not have a creator then there is no god of any kind?  It doesn't have an obvious purpose and it may have always existed.

 

Our universe is a big and very old place with phenomenon that are strange to our primate brains.  Somewhere out there perhaps there are creatures with traits similar to what humans called etherealness.  But if that is true this does not make gods real.  It would only be a coincidence.

 

Statistically we can rest assured that there is no superior being listening to prayer and giving special benefits to any major religion.  The numbers would have been different if that were the case. 

 

 

"So if our universe did not have a creator then there is no god of any kind?"

 

This was just one example. There are as many possibilities of a god of some kind to exist than our imaginations could invent, but for what purpose? One can invent a kindly loving god or a god of some other kind but what is the evidence to support such a belief? Not much evidence to support the existence of Superman or Wonder-woman either.

[Joshpantera]

Lucy, I can remember some things back to when I was 2 but not earlier. At that time we went to church and I remember that, but I didn't have a real understanding of God. I was probably told about God but I wasn't really understanding the whole thing until much later. I was 4 when my brother was born but I don't recall really thinking about God all that much at that age. I wasn't really thinking about things like creation. I supposed I believed in God due to accepting what everyone else was saying, but I didn't have a real concept of what that meant aside from going along with the flow. It took some time for theism to kick in to where I understood what it meant. And to be honest I only really understood and accepted it from around age 5 - 15. After that it became glaringly clear that my parents, teachers, and pastors were all involved in a childish game of make believe, even at their ages.

 

I was so disappointed too. I gave my parents a lecture about believing in fairy tales that didn't go over so well. I seem to remember taking a beating over it as a teenager. But, with time, both of them eventually dropped religion and came to me looking for answers since I was the village atheist. My brothers and sisters all dropped theistic belief too when they were old enough to think for themselves. It's finally run out of rope in my immediate family line. And our kids are not theistic either. It's a total transformation. And they don't really get hung up on where did everything come from or what happens when we die. I told them that the truth is that no one knows for sure what happens when we die and that any one who claims to know these things absolutely is lying. They're basically immunized against religious proselytizing because I've taught them how arguments unfold and how their religious relatives are incorrect in specific cases - to the point of showing them in the Bible where it contradicts itself. They don't really like the religious zealot relatives because they're basically assholes and the kids don't like that and associate religion with being an asshole due to this correspondence.  

[pantheory]

When we are very young we believe everything our parents tell us without question. We are at their mercy. It isn't until we're older that we start to realize parents can lie to us and that parents can be wrong. We are born with an innate trust in authority and our logic defaults to "appeal to authority" arguments. A parental opinion trumps all other logic. If "other people" disagree with your parents, you will still think your parents are right.

 

Most of us brought up in a religious home are raised to believe in our parents' god. This belief begins before the brain even starts to form long term memories. I remember Bible lessons from my youth. I don't recall not knowing the material in the lessons. It was all repeats at the point I start to have long term  memories. I have no memory of someone sitting me down and explaining to me that god exists. It was just a constant and a known fact that was without question. I don't recall not knowing it. The whole idea that there might not be a god was something I learned much later.

 

Someone raised this way would find the whole idea of atheism shocking and strange. "Some don't believe? How? Everybody knows there is a god!" If you're raised surrounded by people with the same beliefs as you, you think everybody agrees on the same things. Most children haven't been exposed to enough of the world to see lots of people disagree. Using "everybody knows" logic is something that I think is innate and a phase children will all go through since most of the adults they will have been exposed to are probably in the same social circles and probably all agree with each other on most topics. As you mature you eventually learn that just because "everybody knows" something doesn't mean it is true.

 

 

There is a definite difference in someone who was raised areligious and ends up atheist just because no on ever tried to force a religious belief on them and someone who was Christian at such an early age they don't recall not knowing Christianity who then later decides their whole worldview is wrong and ends up an atheist. (sorry for run on sentence)

 

 

I think our innate sense is to just begin our lives with full trust of our parents. At the point of which we begin to form long term memories our beliefs will match with whatever our parents teach us in our pre-long term memory phase. I give parents both credit and blame for long term ideas formed in this phase of development.

 

If I try to think of my earliest memories. I don't recall not being a Christian. I know I was born without belief. The physical "me" was born agnostic atheist by default. The current "me" as a stream of consciousness began life around 3 or 4 years old and was already a Christian. I wasn't a super knowledgeable Christian, but I was a Christian to the full extent that my mental capacity would allow. This sort of early childhood amnesia makes it difficult to claim an "innate" belief. A lot of beliefs have begun to form before the phase of "childhood amnesia" ends.

 

The human mind can understand the universe quite well, I believe. It's just that a lot of our present science concerning the universe is "goofed up" and based upon misinterpretations and misunderstandings of it IMO.

 

Otherwise I agree with your posting.

[Joshpantera]

I made statements about the atheist organizations general consensus in an off hand way earlier, without citation.

 

Apologies: 

 

"The 'weak' definition has the greatest historical precedence, it has (in my opinion, and that of Smith) the best etymology, and is the most practical. The term atheist has been widely used as a slur or an epithet to indicate an evil person. Positive Atheism Magazine thinks one of the first steps should be to hammer out a definition for the term atheism and to agree to use it. True, atheism's opponents will continue to abuse and misuse the term atheism in their efforts to refute our position, telling us that an atheist is something other than what we are (usually making us out to be people who hold the "strong" position), and then demanding that we defend this other position. However, the least we atheists can hope for is that we can agree to use the term consistently and then be able to point to that consistent use when defending our position against our opponents. This is why we hold the "weak" position and this is why we so patiently and consistently advocate for that position."

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9102.htm

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"The AAI (Atheist Alliance International) agrees with you on the definition of atheism. In 2003, we assigned your issue to a committee, which gave the definition of atheism, 'Absence of belief in the existence of any gods.' The committee was to have notified dictionary editors and publishers of this. We feel that, as the world's largest atheist organization, we should hold some sway. Many dictionaries today say that atheists 'deny the existence of God,' which assumes there is a god to deny the existence of. As a mostly-volunteer group, we have not yet gotten the word to all of the dictionaries.

I hope you will join the AAI and help us in our quest.

Best regards,

Bobbie Kirkhart
President
Atheist Alliance International
http://www.Atheistalliance.org

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."

- "Atheism" By Michael Martin (463)

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tions.html

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"What is an atheist? An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of a god, i.e., in the existence of a supernatural being. Why doesn't the atheist believe in a god? Quite simply, because belief in a god is unreasonable. Can the atheist prove that a god does not exist? The atheist need not 'prove' the nonexistence of a god, just as one who does not believe in magic elves, fairies, and gremlins does not have to prove their nonexistence. A person who asserts the existence of something assumes the burden of proof. The theist, or god-believer, asserts the existence of a god and must prove the claim. If the theist fails in this task, reasonable people will reject the belief as groundless. Atheists do not believe in a god because there is no reason they should. But haven't philosophers proved the existence of a god? No. All such attempts have failed. Most philosophers and theologians now concede that belief in a god must rest on faith, not on reason. Then why not accept the existence of a god on faith? Because to believe on faith is to defy and abandon the judgment of one's mind. Faith conflicts with reason. It cannot give you knowledge; it can only delude you into believing that you know more than you really do. Faith is intellectually dishonest, and it should be rejected by every person of integrity." 

- "Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies" by George H. Smith, 62-3.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Some dictionaries define godless as 'wicked', 'immoral'. I don't believe in gods but I am not 'wicked' nor am I 'immoral'. This means that dictionaries are not inerrant. It sounds like the religious society should be blamed for assigning a morally pejorative connotation to an ordinary descriptive adjective."

- "Loosing Faith in Faith" page 98

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=godless

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"If so many atheists and some of their critics have insisted on the negative definition of atheism, why have some modern philosophers called for a positive definition of atheism -- atheism as the outright denial of God's existence? Part of the reason, I suspect, lies in the chasm separating freethinkers and academic philosophers. Most modern philosophers are totally unfamiliar with atheistic literature and so remain oblivious to the tradition of negative atheism contained in that literature."

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/smithdef.htm

[mymistake]

 

"So if our universe did not have a creator then there is no god of any kind?"

 

This was just one example. There are as many possibilities of a god of some kind to exist than our imaginations could invent, but for what purpose? One can invent a kindly loving god or a god of some other kind but what is the evidence to support such a belief? Not much evidence to support the existence of Superman or Wonder-woman either.

 

 

 

My question was intended to explore what you mean by a God.  Assume for a minute that our universe has always existed and was created by nobody.  Would you still consider them gods if a species of creatures became sufficiently exotic?  Say an organism existed and it was clearly not god like but then evolved to become ethereal or inter-dimensional or something really strange.  Are they now gods even though they have no interest in or knowledge of humans?

 

For me the answer is no, I would not call them gods.

[pantheory]

I always try to use common definitions of words. As for a god I would define the entity as:

 

An entity(s) that has existed for an infinity of time or was created by another god which has had an infinite existence. Its primary existence would be outside the known dimensions of reality, and which has interacted with our world to make changes outside the known scientific systems and possibilities of cause and effect. Its primary concern regarding Earth would be humanity.

 

Definitions differ concerning a Christian god and other religious and cultural beliefs of different times and cultures. But this was my meaning above when I discussed a god(s).

 

IMO the majority of atheists would deny the existence of any dictionary definition of god(s).

[mymistake]

 It's just that a lot of our present science concerning the universe is "goofed up" and based upon misinterpretations and misunderstandings of it IMO.

 

 

 

 

I find this statement to be very troubling.  Care to explain?

[pantheory]

 

 It's just that a lot of our present science concerning the universe is "goofed up" and based upon misinterpretations and misunderstandings of it IMO.

 

 

 

 

I find this statement to be very troubling.  Care to explain?

 

 

I think our ideas of dark matter, dark energy, the Inflation hypothesis, for examples, have little support for their validity. Of course all three hypothesis are needed to support the present Big Bang model. Quantum Theory is another example. Atomic particles must be in more than one place at a time to explain the double slit experiment, and quantum entanglement requires that a measurement of the state of a particle in one location instantaneously effects that state of another "entangled" particle regardless of the distance between them. These are just a few examples where logic would seem to be contradicted. Of course all are mainstream models, but I have proposed far simpler explanations for all of these phenomena, which I believe cannot be contradicted. From this I appeal to Occam's Razor: the simpler answer is the better answer, all else being equal.

 

My comment was in response to your statement that our universe involves "phenomenon that are strange to our primate brains," which I generally disagree with. Although many or most agree with your belief and sentiment, I disagree believing our brains can comprehend the universe.  IMO it's just that our present understandings of the universe are wrong in a number of ways which leads us to believe that the universe is more complicated than I think it really is. My statement  which you quoted was qualified by "in my opinion," IMO, and not necessarily a statement of fact. Other than this small difference I have agreed with your comments and postings

[RipVanWinkle]

I believe there is something different about the brain of people who become atheists after having been Xtians. Every exchristian who has written posts that address this question, directly or indirectly, that I remember have indicated that her primary purpose in her religion was to pursue the Truth. By this I mean the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. When she somehow  gets a signal through the barriers she has built up over the years guarding the myth, something happens within the brain. "Cognitive dissonance" is what it is now called. "Ah, there's the rub" as Hamlet said in his famous speech in the play of the same name. Something doesn't fit right. For most of the faithful the signal is pushed aside and forgotten because she remembers that the devil is the cause of all doubts

a Xtian may have. But this rationalization will not stand against her forever because she remembers that her quest has always been for the truth, or so she always thought. There is thus a hole in the dike, however small and it refuses to go away. The issue keeps springing to mind from time to time. Then another idea slips through the barrier. And another. At some point she decides that if she is rally honest she must research these cognitive dissonances  even if it scares the hell out her (which it does later on). ?After all, why would God not want her to seek the truth? Once they open their minds to search for the truth the barriers will ultimately fall away and she then can't understand how she could ever have believed that nonsensical religion. Others are not wired to find the truth so much as they are to find protection for themselves, whether it is logical or not. So, if this guess work of mine is right, maybe we should not be too hard on the true believers. Maybe they can't help it.  Rip

[mwc]

"a god of some kind."

 

What I meant by this statement is that there seemingly would be a higher likelihood for "a god of some kind" creating the universe and not be involved with it thereafter, than there would be for a god that is interested in mankind and listens to prayers: some might arbitrarily say one in a million compared to one in a sextillion (10^21) -- a minimal possibility compared to a general impossibility.

 

     Deism aspects aside what is "a god of some kind?"  How would you even begin to define such a thing?

 

     I see you attempt a definition of a god in post #39.  How do you know this definition is correct?  Do you see what I'm getting at here?  How do you know what a god is?  How do you know how to define a god?  Are you going by what a god must surely be or what people would like them to be?  What is a "kind" of god?  What are their kind?  What does that entail?  Are there many kinds or one kind?  How could anyone know?  How do you tell them apart?

 

     Personally, I have no idea what a god is.  I thought I did for a very long time but it turns out that I was just accepting someone else's description of what they thought god was supposed to be like but they really didn't know either.  This seems to be the case for everyone.  Everywhere.  I've yet to see people figure out what the hell a god really is or what it's supposed to do or how you're supposed to spot one.  You're just supposed to know them when you see them.  I have my doubts that I could.  I've never seen one or encountered one to my knowledge.  And that's the rub.  If I have and didn't know it then they're rather tricky things indeed.  If I haven't encountered one then not being able to spot or even describe one seems fairly reasonable.  But I'm told it should be the most obvious thing if I ever come across one.  I can't even get a reasonable definition.

 

          mwc

[Ravenstar]

^^^ amen

 

The only definition I would probably accept is a self-directed sentient source of all that is.  Anything less could be many things…  a different form of life (say energetic) or a more advanced form of life… or a quality of the universe, the possibilities are myriad.

 

 

It's a big order  

[pantheory]

 

"a god of some kind."

 

What I meant by this statement is that there seemingly would be a higher likelihood for "a god of some kind" creating the universe and not be involved with it thereafter, than there would be for a god that is interested in mankind and listens to prayers: some might arbitrarily say one in a million compared to one in a sextillion (10^21) -- a minimal possibility compared to a general impossibility.

 

     Deism aspects aside what is "a god of some kind?"  How would you even begin to define such a thing?

 

     I see you attempt a definition of a god in post #39.  How do you know this definition is correct?  Do you see what I'm getting at here?  How do you know what a god is?  How do you know how to define a god?  Are you going by what a god must surely be or what people would like them to be?  What is a "kind" of god?  What are their kind?  What does that entail?  Are there many kinds or one kind?  How could anyone know?  How do you tell them apart?

 

     Personally, I have no idea what a god is.  I thought I did for a very long time but it turns out that I was just accepting someone else's description of what they thought god was supposed to be like but they really didn't know either.  This seems to be the case for everyone.  Everywhere.  I've yet to see people figure out what the hell a god really is or what it's supposed to do or how you're supposed to spot one.  You're just supposed to know them when you see them.  I have my doubts that I could.  I've never seen one or encountered one to my knowledge.  And that's the rub.  If I have and didn't know it then they're rather tricky things indeed.  If I haven't encountered one then not being able to spot or even describe one seems fairly reasonable.  But I'm told it should be the most obvious thing if I ever come across one.  I can't even get a reasonable definition.

 

          mwc

 

 

Large dictionaries have a number of definitions for most all words including the word "god." As I stated in posting #39, the definition that I gave is my preferred definition when having logical discussions of god, but in no way do I believe that it should be a preferred definition. It also isn't one of the most common definitions of the word. I provided this definition to explain my use of the word "god" in my postings. Here is this definition again:

 

God(s): "An entity(s) that has existed for an infinity of time or was created by another god which has had an infinite existence. Its primary existence would be outside the known dimensions of reality, and which has interacted with our world to make changes outside the known scientific systems and possibilities of cause and effect. Its primary concern regarding Earth would be humanity."

 

I think it's a good idea to sometimes provide the definition of the words one is using to help clarify intended meanings and perspectives to reduce ambiguity.

[pantheory]

^^^ amen

 

The only definition I would probably accept is a self-directed sentient source of all that is.  Anything less could be many things…  a different form of life (say energetic) or a more advanced form of life… or a quality of the universe, the possibilities are myriad.

 

 

It's a big order  

 

I think your definition of god is very good and would be acceptable to most followers of Abrahamic religions, therefore it could be a preferred definition of "god" for most conversations in most forums discussing religions pro or con. 

[mymistake]

We have no reason to think the cosmos has a self directed source.  The closest known thing would be us.  Though we are only a tiny fragment of the cosmos we are how matter has created consciousness so that the universe can perceive itself.  Plus we create gods so we have that going for us.

[Storm]

 

Is atheism innate, learned, both or neither?

 

 

IMO atheism is certainly not innate, as is the lack of knowledge concerning the existence of god(s) -- juvenile agnosticism. If one decides there is not enough evidence to make a decision one way or the other, one could call himself an agnostic.  IMO theism is generally learned from a society, group or family, or a belief to explain what one does not otherwise understand. Atheism can be learned in the same way, or both could be a break away from what one has been taught.  If one reads the bible one could come to the conclusion that it makes sense or that it doesn't.  If it makes sense then a person will most likely keep his family religion, if it doesn't  then one could otherwise rationalize his belief or come up with his own ideas which could be a different religion, or a disbelief in religion in general which could be described as agnosticism or atheism.

 

Atheism could be a belief learned from a society or family, or it could be the conclusion of an individual concerning the state of reality based upon his judgement of the evidence available, or lack thereof, or both. It also could be a statement of rebellion with or without a great deal of thought going into the statement or claim.

 

Cognitive Psychology of Religion seems to side with you on that. I agree with you as well. I think atheism is learned and that up until we become conscious of a "god" or even the concept of a deity, we are not really atheist, but something else. Something I have yet to see defined or have defined myself. The term agnostic atheist works, but those words seems to carry baggage with them. I think the best description I can think of is they aren't anything. They neither know or don't know of the concept of a "god" and they also don't know that they know or don't know the concept of "god". They are genuinely nothing.

[Joshpantera]

Non-theist is something that came up in past discussions as a way of avoiding extra baggage that comes with atheism. But both words of course describe the same thing which is a lack of belief in Gods. 

 

I don't know why this is so hard to let go of, the negative perception of not-theism. 

 

It's clearly as simple as either being a God believer or not. There may be a list of categories that define non-God believers, but they all have one thing in common which is that they're not theism. Babies and small children who don't know what theism even is in the first place, children who have been exposed to God belief but do not accept it as real, learned readers who have studied what's wrong with God belief and don't adhere to it.

 

All non-theists.....

 

This should really be incorporated into religious thinking. A child has no belief at first and has to come to the point of consciously accepting belief in God from a previous state of not understanding anything about it and therefore not subscribing to it. The child isn't Christopher Hitchen's. Richard Dawkins, or Sam Harris, but the child is still non-theistic all the same. 

[mymistake]

Non-theist is something that came up in past discussions as a way of avoiding extra baggage that comes with atheism. But both words of course describe the same thing which is a lack of belief in Gods. 

 

I don't know why this is so hard let go of, the negative perception of not-theism. 

 

It's clearly as simple as either being a God believer or not. There may be a list of categories that define non-God believers, but they all have one thing in common which is that they're not theism. Babies and small children who don't know what theism even is in the first place, children who have been exposed to God belief but do not accept it as real, learned readers who have studied what's wrong with God belief and don't adhere to it.

 

All non-theists.....

 

 

I prefer the term secular.  In my opinion it has less baggage and it is a positive description avoiding the "non' or "a" prefix.  We are secular people looking forward to a secular world.