greatgenius: @bolded. thats why i told him i think the topic is over his head...denouncing the obvious fallacies of religion should not out-rightly make/turn one an atheist..that is preposterous and i hope that is not the position for many of the "atheist" brothers on this forum..

now back to your point religion actually preceded agnoticism/atheism..it is religion that actually turn people into agnostics.. the day religion ends will be the day agnosticism and atheism ends.

Guy, your last paragraph is totally wrong! Atheism existed before religion....who was born religious in the first place? No one.

Logicboy03:



Guy, your last paragraph is totally wrong! Atheism existed before religion....who was born religious in the first place? No one.

how did atheism existed before religion..explain..btw i am not saying any one was born religious.. no one is..i am saying that it is religion that turn people into agnostics

greatgenius: how did atheism existed before religion..explain..btw i am not saying any one was born religious.. no one is..i am saying that it is religion that turn people into agnostics

If religion is man made, what was man before he made religion?

It's very simple. Babies, especially newborns, have brains which aren't developed enough to even entertain the idea of beliefs. They have no concept of gods because their brains aren't capable of processing that information. Since this is the case, all babies are atheists, until their brains develop enough to understand language and process god concepts and until that information is actually given to them........... As a side note, the fact that children need to be taught about god is still more evidence that god is not, as many theists claim, self evident in the universe........RRS Feed.

To add on what's already been stated, it's a bit like asking is that baby republican or democrat? Abi na PDP?

Baby isn't old enough to make those kinds of decisions I believe. Parents can now go about indoctrinating...

Edit: And yes, due to ignorance, it's a bit more accurate to describe them as agnostic/atheist. Or would you describe your non-conscious (as far as we're concerned) dog as a theist?

Logicboy03:


If religion is man made, what was man before he made religion?

spiritual...btw you didnt answer my question so i will state it again.. how did atheism existed before religion?

wiegraf: To add on what's already been stated, it's a bit like asking is that baby republican or democrat? Abi na PDP?

Baby isn't old enough to make those kinds of decisions I believe. Parents can now go about indoctrinating...

Edit: And yes, due to ignorance, it's a bit more accurate to describe them as agnostic/atheist.

lol on the surface you made a somewhat good point/analogy till you messed it up with @bolded.. using your analogy can one say due to ignorance it will be more accurate to describe babies as democrats...agnostic/atheism and even theism are beliefs taking a position on something -God( these of which babies do not have a position on).

would you describe your non-conscious (as far as we're concerned) dog as a theist?

im glad you said "as far as we're concerned" because all "beings" have consciousness.. And No i would not because that is on the same level of absurdity as the statement " all babies are born atheist".. theism/atheism are all human belief systems and unfortunately i am not in a position yet to tell you the kind of "beliefs" or "thinking" that goes on in a dogs consciouness

greatgenius: lol on the surface you made a somewhat good point/analogy till you messed it up with @bolded.. using your analogy can one say due to ignorance it will be more accurate to describe babies as democrats...

No. Democrats are a human thing. However 'liberal' or 'conservative' would be a universal thing. More below.

greatgenius:
agnostic/atheism and even theism are beliefs taking a position on something -God( these of which babies do not have a position on).

Which do not need religion to manifest. Note that.

You could come across an atheist/theist/agnostic alien, you cannot come across an alien xtian (ie, so long as it knows nothing of earth and all our shenanigans). When most atheists are pointing this out, the argument is against religious parents who insist a baby/child is xtian, muslim, etc. That's clearly nonsense.

Regardless, focusing on the babies actual position, when born they are more akin to.....agnostic, or neutral, even if not technically the same (due to lack of awareness, but agnostics are not always ignorant or indifferent per se, of course). Similar to every other animal without our sort of reasoning capabilities. The term will be more accurate or descriptive than the other options, indifferent is often interchangeable with agnostic.


We should define these things properly, as you don't seem to differentiate between strong an weak atheism, various agnostics, relationships amongst, etc. But regardless, the above is still fairly accurate

greatgenius:
im glad you said "as far as we're concerned" because all "beings" have consciousness.. And No i would not because that is on the same level of absurdity as the statement " all babies are born atheist".. theism/atheism are all human belief systems and unfortunately i am not in a position yet to tell you the kind of "beliefs" or "thinking" that goes on in a dogs consciouness

Theism/atheism are not human belief systems, they're universal, see above. Not all animals possess our sort of consciousness, clearly. We're the only ones we know of with such an advanced theory of self, capable of advanced abstract reasoning, etc.

So, again, any consciousness capable of reasoning on gods or 'higher powers' etc, and does so, should have a position on the matter. Without thinking about it or having come across the topic before, default position it would be..... agnos.....

How about you start with a definition of terms @greatgenious?