It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Atheism is the default position until being conditioned into believing a persons parents beliefs.
avatar
nadenitza: I dunno, i think they lack the cognitive capacity to be considered anything. Imagine you are baby... nah that won't work, you already have a understanding... hmm... imagine... tsk... hmm, ok, imagine you ask a baby "do you have a theist belief?" What response will you get? Most probably "A-gugu!" :)
Dunno how you can draw a conclusion based around that and how can that be considered yes or no. It's simply neither couse it does not understand what you ask. Or we don't understand what it says, haha

I don't think not knowing about something makes you disbelieve it by default... but that's just me.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: babies are atheist by default, just like they wouldn't believe in santa unless told about him.
No. Babies worship milk and boobs.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: babies are atheist by default, just like they wouldn't believe in santa unless told about him.
avatar
monkeydelarge: No. Babies worship milk and boobs.
I worship boobs but I'm not a baby.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: babies are atheist by default, just like they wouldn't believe in santa unless told about him.
avatar
monkeydelarge: No. Babies worship milk and boobs.
Hmm, that means am still a baby :)
avatar
monkeydelarge: No. Babies worship milk and boobs.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: I worship boobs but I'm not a baby.
You worship boobs for a different reason.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: I worship boobs but I'm not a baby.
avatar
monkeydelarge: You worship boobs for a different reason.
Yeah I have idle hands.
avatar
pimpmonkey2382: babies are atheist by default, just like they wouldn't believe in santa unless told about him.
avatar
monkeydelarge: No. Babies worship milk and boobs.
You get outta here with your light-hearted quips. :P

I'm trying to convert people, dammit.
avatar
monkeydelarge: No. Babies worship milk and boobs.
avatar
scampywiak: You get outta here with your light-hearted quips. :P

I'm trying to convert people, dammit.
I just see no point in debating with Christians. And most of the atheists and Satan worshipers here have explained why Christianity is BS better than me. I have nothing to add, really.
Hmm, Interesting scenario got me thinking...

Will a tribesman living in a remote area his entire life, with no theist beliefs whatsoever, form a "instinctive theist urge" through time similar to those in theist beliefs (like life after death, etc) , without ever having met someone religious or know the concept of religion whatsoever... that's pretty interesting, let's play mad scientists and strand people on a secluded island for the rest of their life, observing their behaviour :)
Post edited February 01, 2014 by nadenitza
avatar
nadenitza: Hmm, Interesting scenario got me thinking...

Will a tribesman living in a remote area his entire life, with no theist beliefs whatsoever, form a "instinctive theist urge" through time similar to those in theist beliefs (like life after death, etc) , without ever having met someone religious or know the concept of religion whatsoever... that's pretty interesting, let's play mad scientists and strand people on a secluded island for the rest of their life, observing their behaviour :)
Or you could just observe the Sentinelese.
avatar
nadenitza: Hmm, Interesting scenario got me thinking...

Will a tribesman living in a remote area his entire life, with no theist beliefs whatsoever, form a "instinctive theist urge" through time similar to those in theist beliefs (like life after death, etc) , without ever having met someone religious or know the concept of religion whatsoever... that's pretty interesting, let's play mad scientists and strand people on a secluded island for the rest of their life, observing their behaviour :)
A tribesman would most likely invent his own explanations.
avatar
jamotide: Easy: The bridge is safe because your friend said so, and your friend is right because the bridge is safe....because he said so.
If you want to dismiss trusting scientists as circular reasoning, you're welcome to, but I'm just surprised at how unscientific you are, especially went you dismissed all inductive reasoning as not being evidence. Fortunately for you, and everyone else, you're wrong. You know the bridge is safe because your trustworthy friend said so, and your friend knows it is safe because he did tests on it.
God exists because the bible said so, and the bible is right because god exists....because the bible said so.
The existence of God has nothing to do with faith because it makes no sense to trust God to exist. That aside, I never claimed the Bible is right because God exists. Please try again.
But that is not how it goes.That is not what I want from them. I ask them why they believe this particular BS instead of some other. I ask them how they can deny Santa Claus and the tooth fairy but believe in another myth.
It would be great if people went back to needing to explain someone's position to them to their satisfaction before they were able to criticize it. If you can't tell why Christians believe God exists and deny Santa and the tooth fairy, then you are choosing to be willfully ignorant of why Christians believe.
I wonder why they deny one scientific theory but readily accept others.
There were many early Christians supporters of evolution. The Big Bang was originally seen theistic idea because a big bang required a big banger.
I want to know why some rules from the bible are very important to them while don't care or don't even know about others.
The Old Testament contains laws that were only supposed to be followed my the King, the High Priest, priests, Israelites living in the land, strangers living among them, and everyone. The general thought among Christians is that the law was given to the Israelites, not to them, so they give primary importance to what is commanded in the New Testament. It's kind of like how there are specific laws that police or judges need to follow, or if you're a US citizen and you never go to California, then you never have to worry about following State laws specific to them. The other thing to keep in mind is that Christians believe that moral laws are universal, so we should follow the moral laws in the Old Testament, even if they weren't directly given to us. I have my own thoughts on the matter, but that's the view that most Christians hold.
I want to understand why they want to worship this murderous 1984 dictator figure they dream of. You can have alot of fun poking holes into their bubbles. No internet discussion is this easy. (see above)
Obviously, Christians disagree with your description of God being a murderous 1984 dictator. Usually those thoughts come from not putting much effort in to understanding the Bible. You're free to poke holes in bubbles, but if you don't understand what you're criticizing, then that only reflects poorly on you.

1.Your evidence is worthless. 2.Nobody said there is no cause for delusions.
You can claim my evidence is worthless to you, but to claim it is worthless is obviously false, because it has worth to me and many other Christians. If you say there is no reason to believe something or no evidence that indicates it is true, then you're essentially saying that the belief was uncased. If there is a cause for a belief, then whatever caused it is evidence for that belief.
avatar
scampywiak: You get outta here with your light-hearted quips. :P

I'm trying to convert people, dammit.
avatar
monkeydelarge: I just see no point in debating with Christians. And most of the atheists and Satan worshipers here have explained why Christianity is BS better than me. I have nothing to add, really.
There's always a point in debating. It's the only true defense we have against fundamentalist thinking. Yeah, I know it's just a gaming site, but the more you can get a person questioning religious dogma, the better.
avatar
nadenitza: Hmm, Interesting scenario got me thinking...

Will a tribesman living in a remote area his entire life, with no theist beliefs whatsoever, form a "instinctive theist urge" through time similar to those in theist beliefs (like life after death, etc) , without ever having met someone religious or know the concept of religion whatsoever... that's pretty interesting, let's play mad scientists and strand people on a secluded island for the rest of their life, observing their behaviour :)
avatar
MaximumBunny: Or you could just observe the Sentinelese.
Religion - Unknown

now that's badass

they are the perfect specimen, mwahahaha! >:)
avatar
Krypsyn: Okay, so since there is no proof of Bigfoot, you hypothesize (i.e. propose) that there is no Bigfoot. Based on this proposition, you decide that you have an absolute lack of belief in the existence of Bigfoot. You do this with full knowledge that there is the possibility that your hypothesis, as improbable as it may be, might be disproven in the future. The fact that you admit that there is a possibility you might be wrong suggests that your lack of belief in Bigfoot is not totally absolute.
"I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside." - Mitch Hedberg