Why I secretly root for Atheists in Debates

Onesimus

Penn wrote: »

Geography is proof. Until they reach an age where they learn about all religions and choose religion for themselves, children grow up believing in whatever religion their parents believe in. Born in a predominantly Christian country to Christian parents, you'll believe in the Christian God. Born in a predominantly Muslim country to Muslim parents, you'll believe in the Muslim God etc.

That means that belief is not something you are born with, but something learnt and instilled from family and society. Then when you reach an age where you can decide religion for yourself, the vast majority stick with the religion they were raised in because that's the religion they were always taught. Some people convert to other religions for various reasons, and some give up religion altogether.

It's not something you're born with because if Christian parents gave a child up for adoption and it was adopted by Jewish parents, the child would be raised Jewish. Your religion from birth is decided by external factors, not internal.

Can you scientifically prove this? Otherwise its just rhetorical theorie with no evidence to back it up.

MagicMarker

Onesimus wrote: »

Can you scientifically prove this? Otherwise its just rhetorical theorie with no evidence to back it up.

Why is it you require scientific proof for something that is plainly obvious, yet you don't care for scientific proof for the existence of god?

Onesimus

MagicMarker wrote: »

Why is it you require scientific proof for something that is plainly obvious, yet you don't care for scientific proof for the existence of god?

How is it plainly obvious? Where is the scientific proof for what has been claimed? Surely if it was obvious there would be scientific proof?

Sonics2k

Onesimus wrote: »

Can you scientifically prove this? Otherwise its just rhetorical theorie with no evidence to back it up.

Do you have scientific proof that your God exists?

Of course not.

28064212

Onesimus wrote: »

Can you scientifically prove this? Otherwise its just rhetorical theorie with no evidence to back it up.

Wrong. You're back to shifting the burden of proof again. Which isn't surprising since you clearly didn't understand what that meant the first time around. There has never been any evidence to suggest that faith is genetic. Science has never found a "faith gene", or any evidence to suggest that there is one. Your theory is that faith is genetic, therefore it's up to you to present evidence to support it.

Onesimus

Sonics2k wrote: »

Do you have scientific proof that your God exists?

Of course not.

But this not about God right now, this about atheism and the claim that atheists are born that way. We need proof Sonic. Scientifically Prove to me you were born that way.

Penn

Onesimus wrote: »

Can you scientifically prove this? Otherwise its just rhetorical theorie with no evidence to back it up.

Really? That's your plan? Make false claims then when someone refutes your claims, demand scientific proof?

Again, the burden of proof is on you. My claim is generally accepted scientifically as no evidence has ever been found that religion is something a child is born with. There is no "Christian gene" or "Jewish gene". If you are claiming that children are born with religion already determined genetically (something which has never been observed in science), then the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

Onesimus

28064212 wrote: »

Wrong. You're back to shifting the burden of proof again. Which isn't surprising since you clearly didn't understand what that meant the first time around. There has never been any evidence to suggest that faith is genetic. Science has never found a "faith gene", or any evidence to suggest that there is one. Your theory is that faith is genetic, therefore it's up to you to present evidence to support it.

Science has not found an atheism gene has it? so where is the proof we are born that way?

I am here being inquisitive about atheism. and the claim that you are born that way. Your the one making the claim, so give me proof and convince me.

King Mob

Onesimus wrote: »

But this not about God right now, this about atheism and the claim that atheists are born that way. We need proof Sonic. Scientifically Prove to me you were born that way.

Prove you were born not believing in bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster or any of the Hindu deities.

And while you're at it, please show us how you have disproven these things exist to show us that doing such a thing is possible.

Unless of course you are asking us for stuff you can't provide yourself, cause that would be kinda dishonest.

Dave!

Onesimus, prove that there is not an invisible pink unicorn standing outside the building that you're currently in. Go for it.

Penn

Onesimus wrote: »

But this not about God right now, this about atheism and the claim that atheists are born that way. We need proof Sonic. Scientifically Prove to me you were born that way.

And again, the proof can easily be shown geographically and historically. People born thousands of years ago in Greece to Greek parents believed in the Greek gods. People born at the same time in Rome to Roman parents believed in the Roman gods. People born today in Christian countries to Christian countries believe in the Christian God. People born today in Jewish countries to Jewish parents believe in the Jewish God. People born today in Muslim countries to Muslim parents believe in the Muslim god.

People born today in rainforest tribes who have never heard of any of those gods, are never born with a belief in those gods. Why? Because it's not something you're born with. It's something you're taught. Nobody from a tribe in the Amazon would suddenly decide that he believes in God, because he's never heard of God. He'd never suddenly decide that he wants to become a Mormon because he doesn't know what Mormonism is.

Onesimus wrote: »

Science has not found an atheism gene has it? so where is the proof we are born that way?

There's no atheism gene either, there is no gene about religion whatsoever. It's something you're taught by parents and society.

28064212

Onesimus wrote: »

Science has not found an atheism gene has it? so where is the proof we are born that way?

I am here being inquisitive about atheism. and the claim that you are born that way. Your the one making the claim, so give me proof and convince me.

I'll prove it when you prove that Allah doesn't exist.

Do you not understand the burden of proof? It's a pretty classic logical fallacy. Note the word that's bolded. It means that if I claim there is an invisible purple unicorn in front of me, it's up to me to prove it's there, not for other people to prove it's not there.

Of course, if you do understand it, then you're just trolling

EDIT: Dammit Dave!

Onesimus

King Mob wrote: »

Prove you were born not believing in bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster or any of the Hindu deities.

And while you're at it, please show us how you have disproven these things exist to show us that doing such a thing is possible.

Unless of course you are asking us for stuff you can't provide yourself, cause that would be kinda dishonest.

Stop sidetracking and turning the tables and answer the question and prove to me you were born that way.

Onesimus

28064212 wrote: »

I'll prove it when you prove that Allah doesn't exist.

Do you not understand the burden of proof? It's a pretty classic logical fallacy. Note the word that's bolded. It means that if I claim there is an invisible purple unicorn in front of me, it's up to me to prove it's there, not for other people to prove it's not there.

Of course, if you do understand it, then you're just trolling

EDIT: Dammit Dave!

and if someone makes the claim that they born in such a way as you do, then burden of proof is on them also. So I'm being inquisitive. Prove to me you were born that way.

Onesimus

Dave! wrote: »

Onesimus, prove that there is not an invisible pink unicorn standing outside the building that you're currently in. Go for it.

Provide proof that you were born that way. Come on seriously. how hard is it to do this? otherwise your living proof of someone with faith in practice but deciding to put it elsewhere.

Dave!

Onesimus wrote: »

Provide proof that you were born that way. Come on seriously. how hard is it to do this? otherwise your living proof of someone with faith in practice but deciding to put it elsewhere.

I didn't say anything about being born any way, you can ask the others to address that if you like. I just asked you a straight question. Prove that there is not an invisible pink unicorn standing outside the building that you're currently in.

Sonics2k

I love how you're blatantly ignoring Penn, who has explained it to you twice now.

28064212

Onesimus wrote: »

and if someone makes the claim that they born in such a way as you do, then burden of proof is on them also. So I'm being inquisitive. Prove to me you were born that way.

Firstly, it's not my claim. Secondly, you can't claim that a lack of belief is a position that needs evidence. My dog is atheist. My table is atheist. The one-celled fertilised egg is atheist. I can't prove that they don't have a belief. Your position that the one-cell egg does have faith is exactly equivalent to claiming that tables have faith when they are "made"

King Mob

Onesimus wrote: »

Stop sidetracking and turning the tables and answer the question and prove to me you were born that way.

Simple. You were born not believing in other fictional entities.
You weren't born believing in Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster or the hindu gods.
The only difference is you were raised to believe in one particular fictional entity.

Now the thing is Onesimus you're the one who is sidetracking, since the article you posted made and then you repeated the common canard that atheists need to prove that God does not exist to have a point.

So I'm just asking you to do what you are asking us.
Prove to us some fictional entity does not exist.
It should be a trivial matter, yet you and others who repeat that nonsense argument seem to have issues doing that.

Penn

Sonics2k wrote: »

I love how you're blatantly ignoring Penn

Penn doesn't love it...

Standman

Onesimus wrote: »

Stop sidetracking and turning the tables and answer the question and prove to me you were born that way.

Babies cannot comprehend the idea of god, or even belief. There's your proof.

The alternative is that new born babies believe in god, in this case specifically the Christian god.

Do you often have theological discussions with babies?

Dades

Onesimus - contribute something useful to your own thread or I'm closing this travesty.

I don't know whether you're trolling or panicking but your replies are just nonsense questions asked to sidestep giving any relevant answers.

fitz0

Dave! wrote: »

Onesimus, prove that there is not an invisible pink unicorn standing outside the building that you're currently in. Go for it.

Where's your scientific proof that Onesimus is in a building? :pac:

Bannasidhe

Can I just say before Dades locks the thread (I have no 'faith' that Onesimus will contribute something useful) that I like being 'mean' about the church - I revel in being 'mean' about the church.

I love that I can be 'mean' about the church and there is not a damn thing they can do about it unlike in their 'glory' days when they would have burned me for being a heretic uppity women.

So on behalf of all those who died for being 'mean' about the church - may I blow this *raspberry* at the Vatican accompanied by a 'nah, nah, nahnah, na - you can't touch me!'

I did enjoy that

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

may I blow this *raspberry* at the Vatican

At a rugby international weekend a few years back, myself and a friend -- a catholic who converted to protestantism, the faithless hound! -- rented a car in Rome and more or less randomly found ourselves driving up the Via della Colciliazione, the large street that leads from the Tiber straight into Peter's Square. Suddenly noticing Peter's Basilica dead ahead, I settled back into first gear and, as one, we wound down our windows, developed a beatific smile and simply waved at everybody with that rather absent-minded palm-upwards-with-curled-fingers index-finger-faintly-extended wave that seems to be part of the papal job description, blessing the occasional passerby. Just before we had to make a 90 degree turn to avoid mowing down pedestrians on Peters Square itself, we drifted past a priest with a truly thunderous expression on his face, who tracked us as though his head were on ball-bearings. So I blessed him too. He looked like he needed it. And we both reckoned it was all very therapeutic for us too as we'd had pizza the previous evening in that square with the statue of Giordano Bruno.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

At a rugby international weekend a few years back, myself and a friend -- a catholic who converted to protestantism, the faithless hound! -- rented a car in Rome and more or less randomly found ourselves driving up the Via della Colciliazione, the large street that leads from the Tiber straight into Peter's Square. Suddenly noticing Peter's Basilica dead ahead, I settled back into first gear and, as one, we wound down our windows, developed a beatific smile and simply waved at everybody with that rather absent-minded palm-upwards-with-curled-fingers index-finger-faintly-extended wave that seems to be part of the papal job description, blessing the occasional passerby. Just before we had to make a 90 degree turn to avoid mowing down pedestrians on Peters Square itself, we drifted past a priest with a truly thunderous expression on his face, who tracked us as though his head were on ball-bearings. So I blessed him too. He looked like he needed it. And we both reckoned it was all very therapeutic for us too as we'd had pizza the previous evening in that square with the statue of Giordano Bruno.

I love St Peter's. It's a monument to bad taste and proof that money cannot buy style.

My favourite has to be the Pope John XXII who was preserved by being 'waxed' (similar to the method used to preserve Lenin and Eva Peron). I had to be dragged away from that.

marienbad

Onesimus wrote: »

Stop sidetracking and turning the tables and answer the question and prove to me you were born that way.

Just for arguments sake Onesimus you could prove the above and could also prove the existance of God, that would apply to all gods would it not ?

So how would you prove the existance of the one true God above all others ?

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I love St Peter's. It's a monument to bad taste and proof that money cannot buy style.

I gather too that the colonnade around the square is made from marble stolen from the Coliseum by some 14/15th century pope. Haven't heard that the Vatican has ever offered to return it, or make good the damage it did (good heavens, what kind of a precedent would that set!?)

marienbad wrote: »

So how would you prove the existance of the one true God above all others ?

You apply Anselm of Canterbury's Ontological argument and retire to a safe distance. Safe from logic anyway.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

I gather too that the colonnade around the square is made from marble stolen from the Coliseum by some 14/15th century pope.

and we won't even mention their fundraising activities of selling 'less time in purgatory' shares...I mean indulgences....!

marienbad

robindch wrote: »

I gather too that the colonnade around the square is made from marble stolen from the Coliseum by some 14/15th century pope. Haven't heard that the Vatican has ever offered to return it, or make good the damage it did (good heavens, what kind of a precedent would that set!?)You apply Anselm of Canterbury's Ontological argument and retire to a safe distance. Safe from logic anyway.

Are you saying God is a cancer !!:)

Dave!

marienbad wrote: »

Just for arguments sake Onesimus you could prove the above and could also prove the existance of God, that would apply to all gods would it not ?

So how would you prove the existance of the one true God above all others ?

That's when faith comes in.

Logic and rational argument is well and good, but once they've been stretched as far as they can go, it's handy to have faith to fall back on.

I find that's the approach many more vocal theists seem to take. They make a superficial attempt at presenting an actual argument that supports their belief, and when that's inevitably destroyed they end up retreating to "faith".

Then a new thread is started, or a new debate begins, and they start the whole process all over again.

It would save everyone's time if they just skipped straight to "faith" from the start.

Andrewf20

Onesimus wrote: »

But Atheists have the burden of proving Gods non-existence as well and retain faith too. So one can say there is no logic in their faith and not believing in God.

I think this is a very good video related to this issue:

Ickle Magoo

Onesimus wrote: »

Can you prove you were born that way?

Yes - my parents witnessed it first hand.

doctoremma

How can anyone not understand the concept of " burden of proof" (even if they haven't come across the phrase)?

Bannasidhe

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yes - my parents witnessed it first hand.

My mother still has the receipts for my very expensive education in a non-religious school which was her only real option after it became very clear when I was all of seven years old that I hadn't bought into Catholicism at all and no amount of telling me about Baby Jesus was going to change that or detentions or writing lines or phone calls from the Mother Superior or chats with the bishop...

She took me out of the State national school (run by nuns) before I got myself expelled for persistant questioning of dogma doctrine and declaring 'that doesn't make sense!'

Edit to add:
My granddaughter started school last year, this was the first time she encountered religion and the idea of an all powerful God (despite the fact that her maternal grandfather is a member of opus dei).

She has questioned believers and non-believers as she tried to get her head around this whole concept (she's that kind of child - logical, literal and like a dog with a bone when she is pursuing her enquires). Her conclusion - she does not believe there is a God.

LittleBook

Monty Burnz wrote: »

atheists can agree objective moral values, along the lines of 'don't harm others', 'don't steal', 'don't kill' and so forth. How are these values less objective than - say - the ten commandments?

I watched The Ten Commandments the other day (cracking story) and it struck me that there were clearly functioning societies before Moses went for that walk up the mountain.

Onesimus wrote: »

Stop sidetracking and turning the tables and answer the question and prove to me you were born that way.

Onesimus wrote: »

But this not about God right now, this about atheism and the claim that atheists are born that way. We need proof Sonic. Scientifically Prove to me you were born that way.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Yes - my parents witnessed it first hand.

I have been involved in an experiment for the past 16 years. I took a child and I did not indoctrinate her into any faith, neither did I teach her anything about atheism. She went to school in France where neither atheism nor theism was taught as part of the curriculum and the subjects were simply not part of our daily dialogue (apart from questions prompted by external interference in my experiment :rolleyes:).

Et voila! Today she is an atheist agnostic with a penchant for studying religion (expects to get 100% in her leaving certificate) and a passion for mythology.

QED

Bannasidhe

LittleBook wrote: »

I have been involved in an experiment for the past 16 years. I took a child and I did indoctrinate her into any faith, neither did I teach her anything about atheism. She went to school in France where neither atheism nor theism was taught as part of the curriculum and the subjects were simply not part of our daily dialogue (apart from questions prompted by external interference in my experiment :rolleyes:).

Et voila! Today she is an atheist agnostic with a penchant for studying religion (expects to get 100% in her leaving certificate) and a passion for mythology.

QED

Think you meant 'I did not indoctrinate her into any faith'

LittleBook

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Think you meant 'I did not indoctrinate her into any faith'

D'oh. Cue "freudian slip" accusations.

robindch

LittleBook wrote: »

I have been involved in an experiment for the past 16 years.

Likewise, but for the last five years -- not a word one way or the other about religion, god, the pope, priests etc. And on the odd occasion we do go into a church/see priests/interact with religion somehow, she gets just the plain facts; no spin and no emotional kicking or shoving and especially no insults, jokes or threats.

But even at the gentle age of five, snowflake has already been pressured into religious belief, mostly recently a couple of weeks back by Popette (about whom much anon) who told snowflake that she couldn't love anybody properly unless snowflake believed that god exists. Thanks, Popette! Anyhow, snowflake said that she certainly could love people like mummy and daddy and anyway Popette "was stupid and boring" and "what was wrong with her when she said silly things like that?"

Popette only has herself to blame for that one.

Ickle Magoo

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My mother still has the receipts for my very expensive education in a non-religious school which was her only real option after it became very clear when I was all of seven years old that I hadn't bought into Catholicism at all and no amount of telling me about Baby Jesus was going to change that or detentions or writing lines or phone calls from the Mother Superior or chats with the bishop...

Lol, that's gas.

My folks still laugh about the toddler who looked at them like they had three heads whenever anyone/they tried to describe gods or heavens or miracles...at 4/5 I said I didn't think there was such a thing as a god. To ensure their moral obligations were fulfilled (except they're pretty much agnostic so it was really, I learnt in later years, to get a lie in) when we were 5 we were duly sent to sunday school. Apparently I protested so much my dad said it only had to be until I could come up with a decent reason why I shouldn't be there. It took all of a couple of weeks for me to come up with the now infamous "If god made everything, and everything important is in the bible, why are there no mention of dinosaurs in the bible?" question that spelled the end of lie ins for my poor parents. :pac:

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Likewise, but for the last five years -- not a word one way or the other about religion, god, the pope, priests etc. And on the odd occasion we do go into a church/see priests/interact with religion somehow, she gets just the plain facts; no spin and no emotional kicking or shoving and especially no insults, jokes or threats.

But even at the gentle age of five, snowflake has already been pressured into religious belief, mostly recently a couple of weeks back by Popette (about whom much anon) who told snowflake that she couldn't love anybody properly unless snowflake believed that god exists. Thanks, Popette! Anyhow, snowflake said that she certainly could love people like mummy and daddy and anyway Popette "was stupid and boring" and "what was wrong with her when she said silly things like that?"

Popette only has herself to blame for that one.

'My' experiment is about to turn 28.

As a child in London his school took all the children to various churches, Mosques, Synagogues etc where great care was taken to ensure all information was unbiased and respectful of people's beliefs.

When he would spend time with his grandmother in Ireland she would take him to Mass.

His best friend was a Jew, his other best friend was the child of a Sligo Catholic and an Ulster Presbyterian.

His other friends were Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Anglican and Seventh Day Adventists. Plus a few Atheists.

Most of the adults he knew were Socialists or at least leftys.

He has utterly rejected the concept of religion - despite achieving very high (A++) marks in 'Religious Studies' in the School's Certificate (eqv. to our Junior Cert) while in High School in Australia and does not believe there is a God.

He is also not exactly singing the Red Flag...!

He votes the way he wishes to vote even when his left-wing Mammy is having a rant about it as he has not been indoctrinated into any political ideology or family loyalty to a political party. He rants back at Mammy :mad:.

He was exposed to a wide range of religious beliefs and found them all lacking. His studies on the existence of God led him to reject the idea.

LittleBook

robindch wrote: »

not a word one way or the other about religion, god, the pope, priests etc.

It's that simple, yet theists seem to think that we teach atheism to our kids.

"I'm not teaching her about god and religion."
"Really? So, what ARE you teaching her?"
"Eh ... nothing." :pac:

LittleBook

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

To ensure their moral obligations were fulfilled (except they're pretty much agnostic so it was really, I learnt in later years, to get a lie in) when we were 5 we were duly sent to sunday school.

:pac: Wish I'd thought of that.

Bannasidhe

LittleBook wrote: »

It's that simple, yet theists seem to think that we teach atheism to our kids.

"I'm not teaching her about god and religion."
"Really? So, what ARE you teaching her?"
"Eh ... nothing." :pac:

'See that? That's the Milky Way! Here have a look through this telescope..'

'Have a look at this - it's a slow motion film of a whale leaping out of the water.'

'Hey - I got you a chemistry set. Wanna see if we can make stink bombs???'

'I don't know exactly how that happens, something to do with hot and cold air colliding I think - lets look it up.'*

*Last Sunday - soon to be 6 years old granddaughter has developed a serious interest in anything weather related. Sunday's interrogation was on Tornadoes and our first port of call was the National Geographic. If I had tried to tell her 'God' makes tornadoes I would have been withered and she would have still sat there with copies of the NG - she only 'needed' me to read the hard words and find videos of tornadoes on the web for her.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

But even at the gentle age of five, snowflake

LittleBook

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'See that? That's the Milky Way! Here have a look through this telescope..'

You remind me of the time we were on holidays in the country. All the kids were in bed and we were having drinks outside and I looked up and saw the milky way .... it was so clear it looked like a photo. I went upstairs, woke up my daughter and brought her out to see it. We just sat there for an hour, in the middle of the night, looking up at it an chatting about astronomy and mythology. Feel a bit teary now.

ShooterSF

So if we're all born with religion in our genetics why did the one real god (whichever one it is) choose to plant muslim genes, christian genes, hindu genes, buddhist genes etc in us when that would doom many to whatever that religions bad ending is?

Also if people before us were born with the norse gods gene, roman gods gene and greek gods gene does that mean that a mutation took place to create the jew god gene and then through survival of the fittest the other genes died off? Did I hear you say evolution?

joseph brand

Sonics2k wrote: »

I love how you're blatantly ignoring Penn, who has explained it to you twice now.

Sarky

That's not how genes work. Why do people say things like that? It hurts my feelings

Bannasidhe

LittleBook wrote: »

You remind me of the time we were on holidays in the country. All the kids were in bed and we were having drinks outside and I looked up and saw the milky way .... it was so clear it looked like a photo. I went upstairs, woke up my daughter and brought her out to see it. We just sat there for an hour, in the middle of the night, looking up at it an chatting about astronomy and mythology. Feel a bit teary now.

*sigh* Isle of Skye Dec 1989 2 a.m. Aurora Borealis dancing across the sky - 5 year old dragged out of bed, wrapped in blankets, coats, hats etc and brought outside to gaze in wonder. Wonderful old brass telescopes were produced.
Bit teary myself now.