"Twelve Questions to Ask an Atheist"

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"4. Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?"

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]"4- we invented it using our brains. maybe there are better systems for describing the laws of nature that we h ...[text shortened]... he eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature"?

So, do you think the integers cannot exist without a god? Do you think 1+1=2 would be false without a god? Since mathematics can be used to model any physical phenomenon, it is inevitable that the laws of nature and the properties of the universe will be effectively described by mathematics. In fact, much of mathematics -- its notation, terminology, definitions, and axioms -- was fashioned in just such a way as to make it most conducive to describing physical reality. If you find that "eerie" and "seemingly unreasonable" that is your problem.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Most, if not all, religions contain attempts to 'explain' the universe.

They purport to contain answers to questions of what, when where, why ect...
Why are we here, where is here, what is here, how did it come to be...

And mostly they 'explain' and 'answer' these questions by saying a variant of
'god did it'.


Atheism doesn't do this. Athei ...[text shortened]... r religion and then build everything on top of it.

Atheism is a result, not a starting point.

Originally posted by googlefudge
"How many times do I have to say this before you believe me?


EDIT: And yes I have been an atheist since birth." Thread 157261 (Page 3)

Originally posted by googlefudge
"ALL atheism is, is a lack of belief in gods for whatever reasons any given atheist
happens to subscribe to."

Please help me grasp the mechanics involved in the process when infant googlefudge received and assimilated the "reasons" he "happened to subscribe to" in becoming an atheist "since birth".

Also, did infant googlefudge make a comparison between atheism and theism prior to the decision to "subscribe" to atheism?

It would seem that this event would be worthy of publication in an appropriate professional journal. Thanks.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by googlefudge
[b]"How many times do I have to say this before you believe me?


EDIT: And yes I have been an atheist since birth." Thread 157261 (Page 3)

Originally posted by googlefudge
"ALL atheism is, is a lack of belief in gods for whatever reasons any given atheist
happens to subscribe ...[text shortened]... m that this event would be worthy of publication in an appropriate professional journal. Thanks.

An infant no more believes in a god at birth than it believes in Santa Claus, and so it makes sense to say an infant is born an atheist. Later on, when first exposed to the notion of a god, a child conceivably could fail to believe in the notion, and continue to not believe in it on into adulthood. In that case the individual could meaningfully say "I've been an atheist since birth."

There you go.

EDIT: I myself believed in a god somewhere between the ages of 5 and 9. It was a miserable and fearful cloud hanging over my head all the while, and seldom have I experienced a greater sense of relief and liberation than the day I cast a cold, hard stare at the church building and realized: Men built that. Men built the whole lousy contraption.

Originally posted by Soothfast
An infant no more believes in a god at birth than it believes in Santa Claus, and so it makes sense to say an infant is born an atheist. Later on, when first exposed to the notion of a god, a child conceivably could fail to believe in the notion, and continue to not believe in it on into adulthood. In that case the individual could meaningfully say "I've ...[text shortened]... he church building and realized: Men built that. Men built the whole lousy contraption.

"so it makes sense to say an infant is born" with a neutral mind: without bias, prejudice or negative experiences like yours.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"so it makes sense to say an infant is born" with a neutral mind: without bias, prejudice or negative experiences like yours.

"Neutral" may not be an inapt descriptor of a newborn's mind, but it does not conflict with "atheist" as another descriptor. I take the definition of an atheist as being "A person who does not believe in gods." Notice how "atheist" suits an infant far better than "theist," which is defined to be a person who does believe in some god or another. No interpretation of the term "theist" befits a newborn, whereas some interpretations of the term "atheist" can be made to fit.

I do find it endearing how passionately theists will fight the semantic fight to keep infants from being classified as anything resembling an atheist. The only other endeavor theists seem to take to with greater zeal is that of hammering every young, malleable mind in their custody with theist propaganda until they've fashioned identical spiritual clones of themselves.

"Get 'em while they're young" is the watchword of the laity and clergy alike in every institutionalized religious Mafia.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"so it makes sense to say an infant is born" with a neutral mind: without bias, prejudice or negative experiences like yours.

All infants are born as 'implicit atheists', which means that they are incapable of conceiving of a god. Which means that they do not believe in a god, and are therefore atheists. Once they gain the ability to conceptualize a god, they either become theists or 'explicit atheists', which means they are familiar with the concept of god, but do not believe it.

The typical rejoinder at this point is to claim that this logic means that rocks are also atheists because they likewise do not believe in god. The statement makes no sense, though, because rocks will never be capable of conceiving of anything, whereas an infant will. It is therefore useful to point out that all infants are born as implicit atheists and are subsequently taught to be theists (if they do in fact become theists at all). An infant that was raised in complete isolation from any cultural influences would grow up ignorant of the concept of god.

Originally posted by rwingett
All infants are born as 'implicit atheists', which means that they are incapable of conceiving of a god. Which means that they do not believe in a god, and are therefore atheists. Once they gain the ability to conceptualize a god, they either become theists or 'explicit atheists', which means they are familiar with the concept of god, but do not believe it. ...[text shortened]... in complete isolation from any cultural influences would grow up ignorant of the concept of god.

Well put.

Originally posted by rwingett
An infant that was raised in complete isolation from any cultural influences would grow up ignorant of the concept of god.

This statement makes me wonder how the first theist came to that belief.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
This statement makes me wonder how the first theist came to that belief.

The christian God is something like the Wal-Mart of the retail deity market, swallowing up household gods and mom-and-pop shop gods (god of thunder, god of rain, god of blunders, god of pain&hellip😉 across the centuries. No one comes up with such a crazy idea as Jehovah in one night of eating magic mushrooms. It evolved.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
This statement makes me wonder how the first theist came to that belief.

Over time a population may re-invent the concept of god, but it would never come out exactly the same again. But if a sample population could start off its existence as being scientifically literate, it's quite possible the concept of god would never gain any traction. For example, if you raised a population on a deserted island and taught them science from the start, but never mentioned anything about gods, I doubt they would re-invent the concept. A population that was raised without any scientific education would eventually re-invent the concept of god in all likelihood.

Originally posted by Soothfast
The christian God is something like the Wal-Mart of the retail deity market, swallowing up household gods and mom-and-pop shop gods (god of thunder, god of rain, god of blunders, god of pain&hellip😉 across the centuries. No one comes up with such a crazy idea as Jehovah in one night of eating magic mushrooms. It evolved.

Exactly.

You have that sensation that the world is out to get you because everything seems to
go against you, and maybe you think that's because their are minds that control the
winds and the rain and they are out to get you. And on a dark night maybe you can
hear their screams on the wind.
Or it seems that everything is going your way, and perhaps you think that there is some
benevolent force that is making things go your way.

And thus are born the small gods, the spirits and nymphs.

From there you take ideas from different gods in different societies and add them together and
make different gods and mix in different myths and legends until you get someone who takes
the powers and responsibilities of a whole bunch of them who merges them into
'the one god to rule them all'.

Originally posted by rwingett
Over time a population may re-invent the concept of god, but it would never come out exactly the same again. But if a sample population could start off its existence as being scientifically literate, it's quite possible the concept of god would never gain any traction. For example, if you raised a population on a deserted island and taught them science from ...[text shortened]... ithout any scientific education would eventually re-invent the concept of god in all likelihood.

I am not sure that a population of humans would never invent the concept.

But it would likely never become mainstream, as it is and has been in our societies.

Originally posted by Soothfast
The christian God is something like the Wal-Mart of the retail deity market, swallowing up household gods and mom-and-pop shop gods (god of thunder, god of rain, god of blunders, god of pain&hellip😉 across the centuries. No one comes up with such a crazy idea as Jehovah in one night of eating magic mushrooms. It evolved.

And thus Christians have spent the better part of 2,000 years trying to reconcile a wrathful, judgmental, tribal god of the Israelites with a god of universal love. As any impartial observer can see, the two cannot be reconciled.

Originally posted by rwingett
And thus Christians have spent the better part of 2,000 years trying to reconcile a wrathful, judgmental, tribal god of the Israelites with a god of universal love. As any impartial observer can see, the two cannot be reconciled.

This is the central problem with a monotheistic god as opposed to a polytheistic pantheon.

In a pantheon if you have a god of love and a god of war and the contradict each other
then that's ok because they are different gods. They can literally fight and argue and
war with each other and that's fine.

But if you take their attributes and stuff them into the same god, it lands up at war with itself.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is the central problem with a monotheistic god as opposed to a polytheistic pantheon.

In a pantheon if you have a god of love and a god of war and the contradict each other
then that's ok because they are different gods. They can literally fight and argue and
war with each other and that's fine.

But if you take their attributes and stuff them into the same god, it lands up at war with itself.

Ahura Mazda vs. Angra Mainyu.