Why Is Atheism,taking over All Of Europe

Why Is Atheism,taking over All Of Europe

Atheos(greek for "godless"),a term used in the early greek world,from which atheism is coined,is a term tearing europe apart.Europe,once known for its identity with christianity,is now in total division.Militant atheism under Michael Onfray in france,Elton John: blasting the ethics of christian,czech republic:housing the highest number of atheist(and proud of it),church population dwindling and lots more.In institutions,hot,fierce debates between unbelievers and believers have turned classes into religious warfronts.One thing,though striking,but obvious is the cradle of atheists in modern europe.I've never met anyone born an atheist.Majority have deed knowledge of religious books,come from highly religious roots but later divert.Now comes the universal "why" for atheism.In extension,what will be the future of europe,and the world at large in the hands of atheist?

People in Britain, (and i refer to Britain as I speak only for experience) on the whole are so busy working and trying to scratch a living together and put food on the table for their families the thought of getting in touch with their spiritual side laughable. I would say I have God in my life, but thats only because i've had some dark times too, so I would rather get on with the fella upstairs than the other bloke. The other guy is everywhere!!! The road to hell is the easiest one there is.
Also, Muslims are proud, or i should say not ashamed to be Muslims, whereas admitting you are a Christian or Catholic in Britain, you feel like you are opening yourself up to ridicule.
I think people don't think about God until the shit hits the fan.

Originally posted by keloda:

I've never met anyone born an atheist.

Wrong. Everyone is born an atheist.

Originally posted by keloda:

a term tearing europe apart.

Or bringing it together. Atheists aren't waging holy wars, or firebombing clinics, or systematically abusing the vulnerable.

Ive never met a christian that could keep to the commandments, they break one or two of them and turn around and say I am a worse person than them because I am an atheist. Religious people to me act higher than the law and look down on people. However I grew up in a bad town so maybe they are not all the same in other places.

However I grew up in a bad town

It can't be as bad as Luton where I grew up. Thats a shithole now.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by keloda:

a term tearing europe apart.

Or bringing it together. Atheists aren't waging holy wars, or firebombing clinics, or systematically abusing the vulnerable.

They're also obviously humble and free of sanctimony.

Anyway, atheism or other forms of non-belief are in a pretty close race with Islam in Europe. Who knows how it will turn out. Given the tower-of-Jello characteristic of "secular humanism", I'd say Islam's the safe bet.

Originally posted by Museatlantis:

Ive never met a christian that could keep to the commandments,

That's pretty much the whole point of Christianity.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

They're also obviously humble and free of sanctimony.

No, that's just me.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Atheists aren't waging holy wars

Well, the non-Protestants seem to have it in for the non-Catholics and the non-Muslims.

Originally posted by jax:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Atheists aren't waging holy wars

Well, the non-Protestants seem to have it in for the non-Catholics and the non-Muslims.

Well, you do have Hitchens and Dawkins chasing the Pope around with a pair of handcuffs.

Originally posted by Museatlantis:

Ive never met a christian that could keep to the commandments, they break one or two of them and turn around and say I am a worse person than them because I am an atheist. Religious people to me act higher than the law and look down on people. However I grew up in a bad town so maybe they are not all the same in other places.

Also an atheist?

Originally posted by keloda:

I've never met anyone born an atheist.

Everyone is.

But in the sense you mean (i.e. brought up without parents expressly claiming one particular form of religion is the right one - or the wrong one) most people I know and grew up with are.

Originally posted by Museatlantis:

Ive never met a christian that could keep to the commandments

No one can. The idea that you're sinning if you look at a woman and for a split second think "she's good looking" is preposterous.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

The idea that you're sinning if you look at a woman and for a split second think "she's good looking" is preposterous.

That isn't the idea. The idea is to examine the motivations, which is what produces "sin" (or breach of morality, whichever you prefer).

That sounds rather post-Kantian.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

That sounds rather post-Kantian.

It predates Kant, I assure you.

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/5-21.htm

None of the commentaries seem to suggest the actual sin is doing something as opposed to thoughtcrime.

Besides, about half of the commandments are vanity nonsense and utterly useless as any kind of potential moral guidance.

Originally posted by keloda:

I've never met anyone born an atheist.

Are you sure you're human then?

Originally posted by keloda:

Majority have deed knowledge of religious books,come from highly religious roots but later divert.

Of course. How do you think people arrive at the conclusion of there is no god?
The holy books are read and analyzed.

Originally posted by keloda:

In extension,what will be the future of europe,and the world at large in the hands of atheist?

In the hands of an atheist? Dear me, keloda, please use your common sense.
Do you really think that all current politicians are believers of some sort?
Anyway, hopefully the 1st "open" atheist leader of Europe will ban the burka.

Originally posted by keloda:

Atheos(greek for "godless"),a term used in the early greek world,from which atheism is coined,is a term tearing europe apart.

Please provide proof for this claim.

Originally posted by keloda:

.Militant atheism under Michael Onfray in france,Elton John: blasting the ethics of christian,czech republic:housing the highest number of atheist(and proud of it),church population dwindling and lots more.

Your point?
For all of Europe's yen, we (the US) have the yang. FSM only knows the number of religious fundie nuts we have.
In any case, atheists are not nearly as loud as they should be. In this current world where religious fundamentalism is on the rise, atheists should indeed stand up and stop the bigotry that comes with religious fundieism.
http://www.flashpoints.info/issue_briefings/Analysis%20&%20Commentary/Analysis-Religion_main.htm

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Anyway, hopefully the 1st "open" atheist leader of Europe will ban the burka.

There've been plenty of openly atheist politicians in Europe, including as minister-president. It just isn't an issue except perhaps for a minority of Christian voters. That said, I don't think burqas should be banned. Realistically speaking it only affects a few hundred people and in a worst case scenario you'd effectively be locking them up inside their own homes.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Anyway, atheism or other forms of non-belief are in a pretty close race with Islam in Europe.

The way some of the "atheists" in the forum get bent out of shape concerning Muslim issues. It is not a close race, it is a collusion, some atheists are Muslims in atheists clothing! Shakespeare sums up the duplicity

You are a shallow cowardly hind, and you lie.

Taken from: Henry IV, part I

God hath given you one face, and you make yourselves another.
William Shakespeare

William didn't like sock puppets either. lol

Belgium's lower house of parliament has voted for a law that would ban women from wearing the full Islamic face veil in public.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8652861.stm

Only around 30 women wear this kind of veil in Belgium, out of a Muslim population of around half a million.

Originally posted by keloda:

Europe,once known for its identity with christianity,is now in total division.

This 'unity in christianity' has never been much more than a pious myth. You may want to read up on things like the timeline of the christianization of europe ( when do you think it was complete? ), the various schisms within christianity and reformation.

Originally posted by keloda:

I've never met anyone born an atheist.

Obviously you have never met a human being

Originally posted by keloda:

Now comes the universal "why" for atheism.

Pick a 'holy' book. Any 'holy' book. Try to make sense of it.

Originally posted by keloda:

In extension,what will be the future of europe,and the world at large in the hands of atheist?

So, there are two countries with atheist majorities. Small countries. And all of sudden they take over europe? In which alternate universe do you live?

Originally posted by grysmn:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Anyway, atheism or other forms of non-belief are in a pretty close race with Islam in Europe.

The way some of the "atheists" in the forum get bent out of shape concerning Muslim issues. It is not a close race, it is a collusion, some atheists are Muslims in atheists clothing! Shakespeare sums up the duplicity

You are a shallow cowardly hind, and you lie.

Taken from: Henry IV, part I

Yes you do. Repeatedly.

Originally posted by keloda:

Why Is Atheism,taking over All Of Europe

Both theist and atheist vision of the world are part of human nature. That is not the problem.
Europe, unfortunately, it's now under the domination of a consumer's, dehumanizating perspective, lead by by dominant Northern countries.
The vision of Mystery must obey to the vision of practical small reality that needs to reduce human beings to a part of the productive process/factory.
You are confusing Northern Europe and Southern Europe. Don't do it, that's a big mistake.
The future for Europe will be it's past. An eternal cycle.

Originally posted by Museatlantis:

Ive never met a christian that could keep to the commandments, they break one or two of them and turn around and say I am a worse person than them because I am an atheist. Religious people to me act higher than the law and look down on people. However I grew up in a bad town so maybe they are not all the same in other places.

Not all are. I too, think it is disgusting how people will harass those that are atheist.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The future for Europe will be it's past. An eternal cycle.

So you are saying that Europe must "submit" to the Catholic Church once again and buy indulgences for all of it's resident's sins?
Or perhaps that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 should take place again?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The vision of Mystery must obey to the vision of practical small reality that needs to reduce human beings to a part of the productive process/factory.

Remember the 19th century, when most people were Christian?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Or perhaps that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 should take place again?

We get to invade again?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The future for Europe will be it's past. An eternal cycle.

hm, if the part of the past where heretics get burnt at the stake is coming along again i had better get myself some fire retardant clothing.

Originally posted by Zotlan:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Or perhaps that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 should take place again?

We get to invade again?

Of course. We'll subdue those feeble English again and again and again. And rejoin the Benelux plus parts of northern France as one glorious nation. Bi-la kaifa!

The Glorious Revolution was of course a home-made British thing but nicetry there dawg. Not surprised about any perceived rise in Atheism in Europe with the traditional input of Roman Catholicism as the dominant fator over ther nt surprised one bit. As for here folk have just got indolent and lazy more than anything else and this in turn gives the impression that atheism is the in thing. Many of the same lazy are people who would profess a general belief but become contributors to the secular attitude at work.

Why? Did someone say Edinburgh city council ? Perhaps it is about migration??

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

So you are saying that Europe must "submit" to the Catholic Church once again and buy indulgences for all of it's resident's sins?

Not at all.
Europe has a past that is strongly anchored at an Humanistic vision (although interpreted differently according basically Catholic and Protestant approaches) but also has a "natural" impulse towards violence and self destruction.
That's what I called Europe's eternal cycle. And we can't fight a destiny.

Another thing will be the progressive secularization of states (witch I agree) and people's life (witch I think it's bad),inside Europe.
Religion as a moral guidance for values can't be a kind of ashamed and personal thing, it should be public and active.
I don't know the numbers but I think that atheist persons will be something about 10-15% of the population. Nothing more.

I would venture that most people are somethingists, which in practice is roughly the same as apatheism.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Religion as a moral guidance for values can't be a kind of ashamed and personal thing, it should be public and active.

*insert "hah" noise*

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Well, you do have Hitchens and Dawkins chasing the Pope around with a pair of handcuffs.

Now that's entertainment! In fact, the Vatican has already prepared a defense stating that the Pope is immune as the head of a state

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The future for Europe will be it's past. An eternal cycle.

Roving tribes of hunter-gatherers? Marauding barbarians? Empires built of the mobility of cavalry? The dark ages?

Which "past" are you thinking specifically?

Originally posted by Denny77:

Why? Did someone say Edinburgh city council ? Perhaps it is about migration??

Now that picture is enough to make some call out "There is no god!"

Originally posted by Redem:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The future for Europe will be it's past. An eternal cycle.

Roving tribes of hunter-gatherers? Marauding barbarians? Empires built of the mobility of cavalry? The dark ages?

Which "past" are you thinking specifically?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Europe has a past that is strongly anchored at an Humanistic vision (although interpreted differently according basically Catholic and Protestant approaches) but also has a "natural" impulse towards violence and self destruction.

That's what I called Europe's eternal cycle. And we can't fight a destiny.

Well depends what the 'destiny' is and if this son of the Reformation has any doubts he'll fight it.

I think the trend towards atheism in Europe is temporary. There will be religious zeal in the coming decade or two.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well depends what the 'destiny' is and if this son of the Reformation has any doubts he'll fight it.

No it doesn't. It not depends on your will or mine, therefore being destiny.
The "son of reformation" will try to accomplish his part, the heir of civilization will do the same.

Originally posted by ptgauthor:

I think the trend towards atheism in Europe is temporary. There will be religious zeal in the coming decade or two.

Can you explain, at more detail, why do you think that?
I must confess that your words where a surprise for me.

I imagine it's either a Muslim-takeover scenario or a "there are no atheists in foxholes" jab.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I imagine it's either a Muslim-takeover scenario or a "there are no atheists in foxholes" jab.

Well, he is our resident doomsday prophet

Originally posted by ptgauthor:

There will be religious zeal in the coming decade or two.

Yeah, if the our (US) country shows anything, religious fundamentalism may definitely be on the rise in the future for Europe.
The number of religious adherents will probably continue to go down, but those who remain religious will probably go the way of Pat Robertson. ( )

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by ptgauthor:

There will be religious zeal in the coming decade or two.

Yeah, if the our (US) country shows anything, religious fundamentalism may definitely be on the rise in the future for Europe.
The number of religious adherents will probably continue to go down, but those who remain religious will probably go the way of Pat Robertson. ( )

Oh, wacko churches exist in Germany for example but they're a tiny minority. Also, one of the reasons for the relatively high numbers of atheists in many ex-eastern-bloc countries is the relative lack of exposure to religion there - several generations grew up without compulsory ( or even encouraged ) religious indoctrination. I don't think it's overly likely that people who grew up without religion will storm the churches, be it the established ones or the fringe wackos.

Well I see Hawkins the great Atheist champion has been waxing about how spacemen may come here and do all sorts of nasty things to us yakking as if they exist. He has created yet another myth. Just shows that not just religion has it's share of whackos.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well I see Hawkins the great Atheist champion has been waxing about how spacemen may come here and do all sorts of nasty things to us yakking as if they exist. He has created yet another myth. Just shows that not just religion has it's share of whackos.

Um. I think you're getting mixed up between Hawking and Dawkins.

The answer is simple: Them retards don't wanna go to church anymore. Too scared to tithe because they are money grabbing simpletons! That's why.

Atheism is their scapegoats.

Originally posted by Thabotizz:

Atheism is their scapegoats.

No the Church is...You have a idea what a black hole is??

Originally posted by Thabotizz:

The answer is simple: Them retards don't wanna go to church anymore. Too scared to tithe because they are money grabbing simpletons! That's why.

Simpletons - people who make up silly nonsense and personal attacks because they lack the mental capacity to make a point and support it in a halfway sane manner.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Atheists aren't waging holy wars, or firebombing clinics, or systematically abusing the vulnerable.

Speak for yourself, jsp.

Originally posted by Museatlantis:

Religious people to me act higher than the law and look down on people.

Nobody bothers me about my a-religious life. Everybody knows and chooses not to bother me. Must be the strange people I know. Or maybe it's because I'm such a stellar person.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Given the tower-of-Jello characteristic of "secular humanism", I'd say Islam's the safe bet.

Damned bomb-throwing secularists!

Originally posted by fanfaron:

(on looking at sexy women)That isn't the idea. The idea is to examine the motivations, which is what produces "sin" (or breach of morality, whichever you prefer).

Do I have another choice? Never elevate your insecurities and "moral" preferences to the status of diktats.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I think you're getting mixed up between Hawking and Dawkins.

Maybe he's thinking of Sadie "Hawkings".

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Speak for yourself, jsp.

What you do is your business...

Skimming over......

More correctly, I'd say all humans are born Agnostic - without an opinion either way and really without any knowledge of such things. From there they learn how others feel and what others believe and grow up either following others or turning in their own direction.

But as to the title question "Why Is Atheism,taking over All Of Europe", I'd say people are waking up and coming to terms with reality.

Saying Humans are born Agnostics has the same value as saying they are born Theists or Atheist. It doesn't apply for none of them because all three arguments needs conscious from the subject, to exist.
The only argument that could be used would be the Theist one, based at some non verifiable "gift" or something. But anyway it would be a non verifiable argument.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Saying Humans are born Agnostics has the same value as saying they are born Theists or Atheist. It doesn't apply for none of them because all three arguments needs conscious from the subject, to exist.
The only argument that could be used would be the Theist one, based at some non verifiable "gift" or something. But anyway it would be a non verifiable argument.

If you are born without a belief in any god, then you are born atheist. Agnosticism involves having a position on the subject - whether you just aren't sure, or don't think anyone can know. You have to know what you don't know, so to speak.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Agnosticism involves having a position on the subject - whether you just aren't sure, or don't think anyone can know

Therefore you can't born agnostic unless you were born with positions about things.

Exactly, so you're born an atheist. Without any kind of belief in gods.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Exactly, so you're born an atheist. Without any kind of belief in gods.

Empty word game, nothing more.
From no position at all - either lack of believe, deny of believe or believing - you can't deduce one position that is missing, as obvious.

You're also born without the ability to wipe your own butt. Doesn't make it any less so.

That lack of a position is atheism by definition. Much as one would say a newborn does not believe in Santa, one can say it does not believe in Gods, pixies, or muffins.

Agnostic Ag*nos"tic, a. [Gr. 'a priv. + ? knowing, ? to know.]
Professing ignorance; involving no dogmatic; pertaining to or
involving agnosticism. -- Ag*nos"tic*al*ly, adv.
[1913 Webster]

-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Agnostic Ag*nos"tic, n.
One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any
knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism,
neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal
Deity, a future life, etc.
[1913 Webster]

Atheism A"the*ism, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.]
1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or
supreme intelligent Being.
[1913 Webster]

Atheism is a ferocious system, that leaves nothing
above us to excite awe, nor around us to awaken
tenderness. --R. Hall.
[1913 Webster]

Atheism and pantheism are often wrongly confounded.
--Shipley.
[1913 Webster]

2. Godlessness.
[1913 Webster]


pixies and muffins.

Since you seem to like definitions, languish.

When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.
[Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3.
Prometheus, 1980.]
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.
[Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, p. 99.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]
The word "atheism," however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of "atheist" in English is "someone who asserts there is no such being as God," I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix "a" to be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," "atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels "positive atheist" for the former and "negative atheist" for the latter.
[Antony G.N. Flew and Paul Edwards, God, Freedom, and Immortality p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984.]

Whoever R. Hall was, he fell a few steps short of making it to the potty. Atheism, whatever else it is, surely isn't a "system".

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Since you seem to like definitions, languish.

When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.
[Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3.
Prometheus, 1980.]
Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.
[Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist, p. 99.
Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.]
The word "atheism," however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of "atheist" in English is "someone who asserts there is no such being as God," I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix "a" to be read in the same way in "atheist" as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as "amoral," "atypical," and "asymmetrical." In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels "positive atheist" for the former and "negative atheist" for the latter.
[Antony G.N. Flew and Paul Edwards, God, Freedom, and Immortality p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984.]

Whoever R. Hall was, he fell a few steps short of making it to the potty. Atheism, whatever else it is, surely isn't a "system".

Retirement gives us far to much time. I need to drink more.

edit: he must have been a intelligent creator

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Empty word game, nothing more.

Religion= waste of your life that you otherwise could be living to the fullest.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Religion= waste of your life that you otherwise could be living to the fullest.

For some it is quite satisfactory.

Originally posted by DanielHendrycks:

For some it is quite satisfactory.

Of course.
But some people never fully realize that they have a choice.
I know a family that lives right down the road whose adult children do not realize that they do not have to worship old Yahweh.
Their noses have been kept in the bible for pretty much all their lives and the 3 girls have no clue how to interact socially with people their age.
It is truly a sad case, but hey, they have a friend in Jesus! ( )

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

and the 3 girls have no clue how to interact socially with people their age.

And I am in support Dawkins' stance on people making their own decision when they are of age rather than "If there parents are Muslim/Mormon/whatever, the children are the same", mind you.

I do think that is sad, too; the parents are probably just being self-righteous in isolating their children and brainwashing them. I hate one of the results of this isolation at that: they are ignorant. This reminds me of what Daniel Dennet said, (paraphrase) "If a religion that does not have it's backbone based on parents making there kids ignorant and oblivious to any other belief, that religion deserves to flourish". Sadly, parents so much time making sure there kids are ignorant. I despise the ignorance among kids around me. They cannot have there views changed at all a posteriori what there parents have said. Sickning. (I find this is the case when I talk about homosexuality and evolution)

Yes, religion is wonderful for some. For other things it is a sad case. Just please do not make a generalization to everyone (you did not say "to some") that religion is a waste.

Originally posted by DanielHendrycks:

Just please do not make a generalization to everyone (you did not say "to some") that religion is a waste.

My apologies.
I probably shouldn't have over-generalized.
(I blame the final exams! )

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

final exams!

Originally posted by DanielHendrycks:

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Religion= waste of your life that you otherwise could be living to the fullest.

For some it is quite satisfactory.

And far be it from me to try to talk them out of it. Unless they ask for it by pretending their delusions are proven facts.

We never went to church,
Just get on with work and sometimes things'll hurt,
But it's hit me since you left us,
And it's so hard not to search.

If you were still about,
I'd ask you what I'm supposed to do now,
I just get a bit scared,
Even now,
Hope I made you proud.

I never cared about God when life was sailin' in the calm,
So I said I'd get my head down and I'd deal with the ache in my heart,
And for that if God exists I'd reckon he'd pay me regard,
Mum says me and you are the same from the start.
-- The Streets, "Never Went To Church"

We had before the discussion about agnostic/atheist/theist definitions and I thought that was already clear.
I'm not discussing that, but the attempt of saying that people are born agnostic and then society (or environment, family or whatever) made them corrupted souls, that underlines that idea. The idea of religion as something non natural versus an original purity expressed as a natural agnosticism.

That's a fallacy.
People are born nothing except capacity for interact with the world, at a level that exceeds all other animals.
Agnosticism (and atheism or theism) it's one of the results of that interaction with the world.
Obviously trying to demonstrate that people are already agnostics when they born it's equivalent to say that something exists before existing.

That fallacy works by using the concepts of lack (agnostic) or denial (atheist) as the the important concept, when in fact, the important concept is "believe". When we are born we believe nothing, so regarding believes we are nothing, not agnostics.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

When we are born we believe nothing

And what is the word for someone who does not believe in god?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

I'm not discussing that, but the attempt of saying that people are born agnostic and then society (or environment, family or whatever) made them corrupted souls, that underlines that idea. The idea of religion as something non natural versus an original purity expressed as a natural agnosticism.

That's a fallacy.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that - everyone learns, from the moment they come into this world. A blank state isn't any kind of 'pure' or perfect state. Learning the tenets of a religion is as natural as learning a language, or learning what foods taste good. But languages, recipes and religions are artificial constructs.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

When we are born we believe nothing

And what is the word for someone who does not believe in god?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

I'm not discussing that, but the attempt of saying that people are born agnostic and then society (or environment, family or whatever) made them corrupted souls, that underlines that idea. The idea of religion as something non natural versus an original purity expressed as a natural agnosticism.

That's a fallacy.

I don't think anyone's suggesting that - everyone learns, from the moment they come into this world. A blank state isn't any kind of 'pure' or perfect state. Learning the tenets of a religion is as natural as learning a language, or learning what foods taste good. But languages, recipes and religions are artificial constructs.

Can you understand that some person with a brain damage so she can't think, it's not an agnostic? If you can, you'll understand my argument.

Languages are artificial, but the ability to learn them it's not. If you apply this to religion you will understand my position on the subject
We are born with the ability to Mystery. At some of us that ability it's destroyed by external influences.
Therefore, as a species, in fact we are born theist.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Languages are artificial, but the ability to learn them it's not. If you apply this to religion you will understand my position on the subject
We are born with the ability to Mystery. At some of us that ability it's destroyed by external influences.
Therefore, as a species, in fact we are born theist.

If I'm understanding you right, what you're proposing is that we're born believing everything, and learning chips away at the unbelievable until we're left with a core picture of how the world works.

What I see as a fallacy is the implication that one can be born believing in all possible gods simultaneously - we simply don't have the imagination, at that point or any other.

What we don't have when we're born is filters - everything is unknown, nothing is certain. And I quite agree with you that those filters are imposed on us as we learn things from the outside world. But that also means that the existence of gods, or science, or rice pudding, or unicorns, are also complete unknowns. Atheism does nothing to remove any sense of mystery - in fact, one could argue that having no simple answer to the big questions is closer to unfiltered perception.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

We are born with the ability to Mystery. At some of us that ability it's destroyed by external influences.

We're born dumber than stumps. If that's what you mean by "Mystery", I agree. External influences give us fried eggs, books and the Mona Lisa.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

We're born dumber than stumps.

Speak for your self please.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

If I'm understanding you right, what you're proposing is that we're born believing everything, and learning chips away at the unbelievable until we're left with a core picture of how the world works.

Yes, also that.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

What I see as a fallacy is the implication that one can be born believing in all possible gods simultaneously - we simply don't have the imagination, at that point or any other.

We are not born believing but already with ability for. Animals don't.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Atheism does nothing to remove any sense of mystery - in fact, one could argue that having no simple answer to the big questions is closer to unfiltered perception.

This is the main point where we disagree.
I think that either agnosticism and atheism (the latest more than the first) are the result of externally driven forces (or conditioners) that block the sense of mystery. Then two possible things occurs, some people say well I don't know, others refuse it.
I've started for being an agnostic, and, as you've said, by removing external filters then I think the way I do know. To me, this position was the approach to the original unfiltered condition.

Originally posted by keloda:

Militant atheism

What is "militant atheism"?

In extension,what will be the future of europe,and the world at large in the hands of atheist?

More progress. More peace. More prosperity. It's happening as we speak.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The vision of Mystery must obey to the vision of practical small reality that needs to reduce human beings to a part of the productive process/factory.

Mystery drives science. Religion wants to put a lid on mystery and exploration by saying "God did it".

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well I see Hawkins the great Atheist champion has been waxing about how spacemen may come here and do all sorts of nasty things to us yakking as if they exist. He has created yet another myth. Just shows that not just religion has it's share of whackos.

You are talking about Hawking, not Dawkins, and what Hawking said was that if they exist, they are most likely the way he described them.

Originally posted by prd3:

Religion wants to put a lid on mystery and exploration by saying "God did it".

crap...... God is truth....your problem, and many others, is you think you can understand it all. Old guys know we don't even come close to understanding anything. The truth as we understand can change tomorrow. Atheism is for the very slow to learn, and the egoistical clowns of the world.

Originally posted by Denny77:

Originally posted by prd3:

Religion wants to put a lid on mystery and exploration by saying "God did it".

crap...... God is truth....your problem, and many others, is you think you can understand it all. Old guys know we don't even come close to understanding anything. The truth as we understand can change tomorrow. Atheism is for the very slow to learn, and the egoistical clowns of the world.

No, to label all the mysteries of the world as "God did it" is to claim knowledge that you can't possibly have. Agnostic atheism claims to know nothing, even strong atheism only claims one thing - that a god is a ridiculous concept. Everything else is up for grabs.

There is no atheist bible, no atheist dogma, no atheist church. No teachings or sacred knowledge.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

even strong atheism only claims one thing - that a god is a ridiculous concept.

*godS

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Agnostic atheism claims to know nothing

I knew someday we would agree on something..

Agnostic and Atheist visions of the world are limited visions that only recognize logic and anything besides logic it's considered as non existent.
I'm sorry but even the very existence of them it's not explainable by logic. Therefore they deny themselves.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Agnostic and Atheist visions of the world are limited visions that only recognize logic and anything besides logic it's considered as non existent.

Wow, this is the stupid quote of the day and probably one of the more ignorant things I has ever read in these forums. Just point me to a single atheist that count love, compassion, and feelings in general as non existent, can you? Atheism is just the rejection of the theistic claim that god(s) exist, and nothing more. In other words, people that are not convinced by the theistic arguments, so they reject the claim until further evidence clarify the issue. You yourself reject claims from every other faiths but your own, you probably think that the Greek, Latin, Egypt, Norse and every other god but yours is just an human fabrication and that people who worship then are wrong, so you reject most theistic claims yourself. An atheist is someone that went a step further and put your god(s) in the same basket.

I'm sorry, but you are are completely ignorant of what atheism, agnosticism and logic are.

Originally posted by Immanis:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Agnostic and Atheist visions of the world are limited visions that only recognize logic and anything besides logic it's considered as non existent.

Wow, this is the stupid quote of the day and probably one of the more ignorant things I has ever read in these forums. Just point me to a single atheist that count love, compassion, and feelings in general as non existent, can you? Atheism is just the rejection of the theistic claim that god(s) exist, and nothing more. In other words, people that are not convinced by the theistic arguments, so they reject the claim until further evidence clarify the issue. You yourself reject claims from every other faiths but your own, you probably think that the Greek, Latin, Egypt, Norse and every other god but yours is just an human fabrication and that people who worship then are wrong, so you reject most theistic claims yourself. An atheist is someone that went a step further and put your god(s) in the same basket.

I'm sorry, but you are are completely ignorant of what atheism, agnosticism and logic are.

Yes, of course.
But some more effort it's needed to demonstrate it. That was not enough.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Yes, of course.

But some more effort it's needed to demonstrate it. That was not enough.

Then perhaps you should put more effort into your claim that atheists and agnostics only accept that which is logical. There isn't an atheist here that would accept that.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

There isn't an atheist here that would accept that.

Ditto.

Ask my beloved wife. There's nothing logical about love, hate, and a host of other commonalities.

Originally posted by prd3:

Originally posted by keloda:

Militant atheism

What is "militant atheism"?

Telling people who preach their unfounded superstitions at you that they're preaching unfounded superstitions. And refusing to pretend that their unfounded superstitions are anything else than unfounded superstitions just because it makes them feel comfortable.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Agnostic and Atheist visions of the world are limited visions that only recognize logic and anything besides logic it's considered as non existent.

Show me an actual atheist who actually believes this nonsense.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

I'm sorry but even the very existence of them it's not explainable by logic. Therefore they deny themselves.

And this is nonsense too - there are perfectly logical explanations.
You seem to confuse 'logic' with 'evidence'.

Atheists are like bees, attack the beehive and they all sort out to defending it.
Accusing theists of being cattle. The insignificant bees...

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Yes, of course.

But some more effort it's needed to demonstrate it. That was not enough.

Then perhaps you should put more effort into your claim that atheists and agnostics only accept that which is logical. There isn't an atheist here that would accept that.

Yes I know. You've quoted my answer to the ridiculous personal attack against my person coming from the idiot of the day.
I couldn't do anything but that.
Sayonara.

Christians calls themselves 'flock', spiritually are leaded by pastors that as you should know if you live in Portugal, literally means 'shepherds' and the son of god is his lamb that was sacrificed in your name. Plenty of cattle as you can see. Nevertheless, don't let the small details hinder you, before you said that more effort was needed to prove my previous point, so keep going, you are making huge strides in the right path.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Yes I know. You've quoted my answer to the ridiculous personal attack against my person coming from the idiot of the day.
I couldn't do anything but that.

Personal attacks are against the forum rules, if you can't distinguish an attack to a remarkably stupid idea from an attack to your person, sooner or later you will get in trouble here in D&D.

Originally posted by Immanis:

Plenty of cattle as you can see.

And the insignificant bee continues..
Now with a difference, I'm not anymore the "the stupid quote of the day and probably one of the more ignorant things I has ever read in these forums" neither a "completely ignorant of what atheism, agnosticism and logic are."
Bees also learn... what amazing. I'll have to quote this at some Psychological study.

Originally posted by Immanis:

Personal attacks are against the forum rules, if you can't distinguish an attack to a remarkably stupid idea from an attack to your person, sooner or later you will get in trouble here in D&D.

Good menace.

Is not menace, is a friendly advice. In the past several members got themselves banned for not understanding that particular rule, most of them at some point mistaking an attack against his or her ideas for an attack against their persons, at that point their arguments become emotional, they broke the forum rules and got themselves banned.

If you think that my answer to your point was offensive, take a deep breath and read what I said again. If you still think that it is offensive, click on the Report link at the bottom right of the post and let the moderators take care of the problem.

"They swallow God without thinking, they swallow country without thinking. Soon they forget how to think, they let others think for them. Their brains are stuffed with cotton. They look ugly, they talk ugly, they walk ugly. Play them the great music of the centuries and they can’t hear it. Most people’s deaths are a sham. There’s nothing left to die." –Bukowski

Originally posted by Denny77:

Originally posted by prd3:

Religion wants to put a lid on mystery and exploration by saying "God did it".

crap...... God is truth....your problem, and many others, is you think you can understand it all. Old guys know we don't even come close to understanding anything. The truth as we understand can change tomorrow. Atheism is for the very slow to learn, and the egoistical clowns of the world.

No, it is you who think you can understand it all by saying "God did it", and thereby putting a lid on all mysteries.

Christian: "What's that? Oh, God did it. Never mind then!"

Atheist: "What's that? Hmm, I need to investigate this. Cool, another mystery to solve! I'll have learned something."

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Agnostic and Atheist visions of the world are limited visions that only recognize logic and anything besides logic it's considered as non existent.

Nonsense. How atheists see things is different from person to person. It's the superstitious believers who are narrow-minded because they simply blindly believe in fairy tales, and reject all evidence that doesn't match their superstition. Rationalists accept facts.

I'm sorry but even the very existence of them it's not explainable by logic. Therefore they deny themselves.

Whose existence is not explainable by logic? Atheists? Sure it is. The facts show that we are the results of millions of years of evolution.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Now with a difference, I'm not anymore the "the stupid quote of the day and probably one of the more ignorant things I has ever read in these forums" neither a "completely ignorant of what atheism, agnosticism and logic are."

You may not consider yourself ignorant of atheism, but I'm afraid your descriptions contradict this.

Of course we're all going to take exception to your characterisation of us - that would be the same if you were mischaracterising a football team, political party, skin colour, sexuality or music genre.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

We had before the discussion about agnostic/atheist/theist definitions and I thought that was already clear.

No, not really.
Basically what you said is that those who do not believe in your god, and do not submit themselves to the Pope are fools.
You never gave a reason why except "Because I say so." and that does not cut it.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

People are born nothing except capacity for interact with the world, at a level that exceeds all other animals.

So now you are saying that everyone is born an atheist. Well done Belfrager!

Originally posted by Belfrager:

I think that either agnosticism and atheism (the latest more than the first) are the result of externally driven forces (or conditioners) that block the sense of mystery.

Please prove it then.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Atheists are like bees, attack the beehive and they all sort out to defending it.

Accusing theists of being cattle. The insignificant bees...

If at anytime, you can be arsed to do so, please feel free to prove that your god exists. Also, after (if you are able to) you do that, please feel free to disprove all the other gods throughout history and exactly why they aren't the 'one true god'.
(Because the bible says so doesn't count by the way. )

What's with all the Nigerian threads trying to convert us heathens? Are they implanting some secret scam code hidden deep within these threads to steal our identities?




::seeks out tinfoil::

Everybody knows that all banks in the west have security questions like "what is your religion?" My savings are now in jeopardy thanks to this thread, onoz!

Originally posted by Y0Y0:

What's with all the Nigerian threads trying to convert us heathens? Are they implanting some secret scam code hidden deep within these threads to steal our identities?




::seeks out tinfoil::

With such silly and childlike comment on D&D,i wonder what we gonna be in the next...................Someone've go to drag some dudes out of this forum.Honestly,that was silly