Quote from: Arch on September 04, 2010, 12:01:42 PM
Once again, semantics is important here. If you do a little more reading, I think you'll find that atheism is not simply a lack of belief or a nonexistence of any thinking on the subject; it's a profession of belief or nonbelief, an act of believing or not believing. People profess atheism; they do not simply default to it.

Exactly. 


BTW, the discussion regarding a baby's belief is nonsensical. Their survival instincts to suckle and thrive are all there is to it.

They have no intellectual concept of whether there is a God or not, or whether or not it will rain today because it is cloudy. 

Babies aren't even aware that us humans have gods and stuff, all they know is that they are hungry/tired etc They have no belief in god, they are pretty much blank canvases.

They are atheists, it rediculous to say that they aren't, people are not born believing in god. I don't even know how people come to that conclusion 

People do not just profess atheism, I was an atheist before I knew there was a term for it because I had no belief in god.

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 04, 2010, 07:36:12 PM
This has become a very grave subject!  And heavy too man.

I've kinda been waiting for someone to tackle the whole "gravity proves" part of this so I didn't have to think!

Where are in the yacht? Great picture, totally jealous.

Yea :laugh

I was sort of thinking that maybe I would read the book before going too much further with God vs Hawking's book.

Most of the gravitational theories  Hawking's and associates are defining, are at the none user friendly  end of quantum physics. I wasn't too good with quantum physics for dummies so maybe we should all cool it a bit.

So let's all cool down before someone says something silly.




Cindy



Nice pic BTW

Quote from: Muffin on September 05, 2010, 04:18:08 AM

Yeah that pic describes how I feel too.

how about this one?

Quote
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," the professor said in his new book, in a challenge to traditional religious beliefs.

I hope that's not the best he can do.  Statements like "gravity necessitates creation" or "the universe must necessarily create itself spontaneously" are not scientific evidence.  That sounds a lot like the same type of arguments that theists use to defend their positions.  Just replace "gravity" with "God" and you have the same type of non-logic to argue how the universe works.  So now, both scientists and theists are using the same argument:  "I can't explain how the universe began, so my position must be correct!"

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this?

Physicists can't explain why gravity exists, so that somehow means that we must get something from nothing?  Please.  Those two things aren't even related.  Gravity has nothing to do with something creating itself from nothing.

Nicely put.

There's another point which has been playing on my mind for a while. I'm no a physisist, just a interested amiter

The press has been portraying this as hawking's Dawkins moment.

But Hawking is saying that everything eminates from gravity. If that is the case, then he is also saying that the remaining other two forces do so also. In other words, Hawking is saying there is only one elemental force in the universe, gravity.

If this is indeed the case then it is considerably more astonishing and mind blowing than any comments about God.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on September 05, 2010, 05:44:53 AM
I hope that's not the best he can do.  Statements like "gravity necessitates creation" or "the universe must necessarily create itself spontaneously" are not scientific evidence.  That sounds a lot like the same type of arguments that theists use to defend their positions.  Just replace "gravity" with "God" and you have the same type of non-logic to argue how the universe works.  So now, both scientists and theists are using the same argument:  "I can't explain how the universe began, so my position must be correct!"

Did you read his entire publication or just the article?

Quote from: CindyJames on September 05, 2010, 04:37:08 AM
Where are in the yacht? Great picture, totally jealous.

We were in Newport, RI.  We visited a friend in CT and made a trip to Cape Cod and P-town.  On the way back Juliekins saw signs for Newport.  Knowing I am a sailing nut she suggested we make a detour.  While walking along the docks we saw a day cruise booth.  1-1/2 hours for $32.50@ on a 46 foot sloop.  As we got on I told one of the crew if they needed any help I had a lot of sailing experience. After we cast off they handed me the helm and I sailed the entire time. I was in heaven! The crew loved the break and I loved the opportunity. Now I'm thinking sell the house and doing a liveaboard. 

Now back to your regularly scheduled program...

Quote from: Nathan. on September 05, 2010, 03:19:20 AM
Babies aren't even aware that us humans have gods and stuff, all they know is that they are hungry/tired etc They have no belief in god, they are pretty much blank canvases.

Babies are born with personalities.  They are anything but blank canvases.  If they were, the belief by some that LGBT people learn to be gay or lesbian or trans would be true.  Each one of us is formed by both nature and nurture.

To engage in a little devil's advocacy, some believers in the afterlife, especially mediums, will tell you that children are the best mediums we have.  Their so called imaginary friends are really spirits from the other side.  While that doesn't mean they believe in God, it does imply some communication with "heavenly spirits".  People who have had near death experiences also talk about communication with spirits.

Of course trying to prove that is about as easy as trying to prove there is or isn't a god.  It seems Hawking is making a stab at it though. 

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 05, 2010, 10:04:48 AM


Babies are born with personalities.  They are anything but blank canvases.  If they were, the belief by some that LGBT people learn to be gay or lesbian or trans would be true.  Each one of us is formed by both nature and nurture.

To engage in a little devil's advocacy, some believers in the afterlife, especially mediums, will tell you that children are the best mediums we have.  Their so called imaginary friends are really spirits from the other side.  While that doesn't mean they believe in God, it does imply some communication with "heavenly spirits".  People who have had near death experiences also talk about communication with spirits.

The bit in bold is all woo, i'm willing to accept that there may be a creator but not in the after life and spirits and stuff without any good evidence.

Also I said pretty much, babys are not all blank but they do not have views on things. They have no view on god, politics etc.

I would think babies have no views on almost anything. They tend to take pretty much everything as being a norm.

Have to agree with Julies point about personalities. I've seen babies, 48 hours old showing signs of preference, even some selective reaction to different stimuli. I've seen several, following shapes around the room, with their eyes, at 3 days.

One of the biggest mistakes many mothers make with their babies is to assume that when they cry they are sad. In reality, they are simply communicating.

Quote from: Nathan. on September 05, 2010, 03:19:20 AM
Babies aren't even aware that us humans have gods and stuff, all they know is that they are hungry/tired etc They have no belief in god, they are pretty much blank canvases.

They are atheists, it rediculous to say that they aren't, people are not born believing in god. I don't even know how people come to that conclusion 

People do not just profess atheism, I was an atheist before I knew there was a term for it because I had no belief in god.

If you're going to eliminate choice from the equation then you might as well say that every person that is either dead or hasn't been conceived yet are atheists as well. While your at it throw in rocks, trees, cars, ...etc. since they all lack belief in a god.  Beliefs and non-beliefs alike are meant to be perceptions of reality. Without something to perceive it's entirely impractical to label that lack of perception as a specific non-belief.
For example, if I were to tell you that there was a person standing directly in front of you you would only tell me that you didn't believe me if your eyes were telling you something different. That is, I'm presenting a situation that contradicts your senses, i.e. what you base your "knowledge/beliefs" on. Now is that lack of belief the same as that of someone who is 100% ignorant of this situation? Is the non-belief of any person who wasn't there as relevant as your non-belief?
Non-belief is always either based on other beliefs or on ignorance and these two "non-belief"s are very different and deserve to be treated as such. To use a term that is meant to pinpoint such a small section of non-beliefs only to leave it open to both knowledge based and ignorance based forms of non-belief only weakens the definition of that term. It defeats the whole purpose of a definition which is for the sake of distinction.
There can be made a very broad genus that covers all non-beliefs, both ignorance and knowledge based where the only shared quality is that of general lack of belief. However there is no more reason to place any importance on one member of that grouping than on any other. e.g. A car is "not" many things, but is it any more worth while to say it is not a dog than to say that it is not a carrot? These types of groupings are unnecessary as anything other than an alternative to labeling infinite amounts of "non" qualities for one specific object and any attempt at grouping "non" qualities leads to logical paradoxes(which is evidenced by Russel's paradox) if used as anything other than for the above purpose. It's a tool that's meant to be used and then thrown out.
So when you use the word "atheism" are you meaning it in a concrete sense that's supposed to withstand in-depth scrutiny? If so then you can't use a simple "lack of belief in a god" as it's definition. However, if what you mean by "atheist" is literally just a broad term for any person who has the specific quality: "lack of belief in a god", then your stance holds no impact. It's just a passive observation of a wide range of individuals and is analogous to any other passively true statement such as, "that dog is not black", when nobody asked.
And to extinguish the argument that will undoubtedly arise from this example, i.e. "what if the argument is that the dog is in fact black?": In that case it just becomes the former type of "non" statement and, as with the definition of "atheism", it must always remain its respective type.
So... please choose your context and stick to it, or at least inform us of when and why you are making the switch.

Does a new born have choice in things like this? I doubt it. they have no idea that people believe in god(s) and a tree has no brain and no thought, but as they have no belief in a god so they are atheists.

I honestly don't understand why people are having such a hard time understanding this. Babies, trees, rocks, dead people lack a belief in god so they are atheists. Although I feel silly calling an object with no thought an atheist.

They only conclusion I can come up with as to why people are having such a hard time with this is maybe they have a negative view of atheism  I don't get it, anything that has no belief in god is an agnostic atheist or gnostic atheist, but babies are not gnostic atheists, they have no comprehension of god or lack there of.

Quote from: Ayaname on September 05, 2010, 03:37:57 PM
Now is that lack of belief the same as that of someone who is 100% ignorant of this situation?

Yes as they have no belief in god(s).

It's that simple.

I have pre-ordered the book.

Nathan we understand what you are saying we just........... don't agree. But you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else.
I doubt anymore discussion on it will change anything... by the looks of it. But that's ok. Right?

Quote from: Muffin on September 05, 2010, 07:44:07 PM
Nathan we understand what you are saying we just........... don't agree. But you are entitled to your opinion just like everyone else.
I doubt anymore discussion on it will change anything... by the looks of it. But that's ok. Right?

I'm fine with people having differing views, I just want to know why.

Babies are either atheists or theists and I haven't seen a single argument in this thread to say that they are theists and not atheists.

Baby atheists are different from adult atheists, but they are still atheists. They are implicit atheists. Implicit atheism is simply a lack of awareness of the idea of god(s)

You've already had it explained to you by several people, you just don't understand what they are saying. Even if I try my best (ok I'm trying to eat pizza right now so not my best) to display the other side of the table you just don't.. short-sighted I don'tv know..maybe stupid.
Beliefs are practices of thought, you have to be aware of the thought before you can entertain it.
Non-belief is still a belief, it is a pov, opinion.  hhmmfff.
BUT you will still not see what I'm trying to say, I feel very certain about that.. but it's ok. Opinions, opinions.. etc.

Quote from: Muffin on September 06, 2010, 04:36:29 AM
You've already had it explained to you by several people, you just don't understand what they are saying. Even if I try my best (ok I'm trying to eat pizza right now so not my best) to display the other side of the table you just don't.. short-sighted I don'tv know..maybe stupid.
Beliefs are practices of thought, you have to be aware of the thought before you can entertain it.
Non-belief is still a belief, it is a pov, opinion.  hhmmfff.
BUT you will still not see what I'm trying to say, I feel very certain about that.. but it's ok. Opinions, opinions.. etc.

Atheism is the lack of belief. Meaning there is no belief there. You seem to be confused by what the lack of somthing means. I lack a belief in god and have done since I was 13, funnily enough I would probably still be a theist now if I hadn't of felt the need to get more into my religion. Learning more about my religion got me thinking, this led to me loosing my belief. I didn't say this is rediculous I can't believe, I just lost it and then tried my hardest to get it back.

Quote from: Nathan. on September 06, 2010, 04:42:05 AM
Atheism is the lack of belief. Meaning there is no belief there. You seem to be confused by what the lack of somthing means. I lack a belief in god and have done since I was 13, funnily enough I would probably still be a theist now if I hadn't of felt the need to get more into my religion. Learning more about my religion got me thinking, this led to me loosing my belief. I didn't say this is rediculous I can't believe, I just lost it and then tried my hardest to get it back.

Nathan, atheism is the disbelief in a God or higher being or creator, any of these terms.  It is not the lack of belief.