Can a child ever know about God if he was not taught about it?

[blazeofglory]

I often feel that we have implanted a belief in children about the existence of God or else they would have never known about God. This means our belief is a form of programming or else all would be non believers. Some of you may agree and some may not. But this is the question I want to put forth to you and create a platform for all to speak up our minds, learn from each other and of course share in the course.

[G L Wilson]

I am not going to burn any books over it, but no.

[Panglossian]

To a child its parents are God. If a child is not introduced to the concept of God I suspect the child would not look beyond its parents (or its toys).

[G L Wilson]

To a child its parents are God. If a child is not introduced to the concept of God I suspect the child would not look beyond its parents (or its toys).

God is cold, man.

[Arrowni]

I taught the child was supposed to see himself as God before looking at his parents. If he was somehow capable of reasoning the transition, he would become pantheistic.

[The Atheist]

I often feel that we have implanted a belief in children about the existence of God or else they would have never known about God. This means our belief is a form of programming or else all would be non believers. Some of you may agree and some may not.

Put me in the agree 100% camp.

Otherwise, kids not indoctrinated by parents and teachers would discover god/s all on their own.

We can prove this never happens simply by looking at what kids do discover, and it's always the same god/s their mummy and daddy believe in. Christian kids amazingly discover the christian god, Hindu kids: Vushnu, muslim children: Allah.

Far too obvious.

[PSRemeshChandra]

We may often can see little children, if left alone, speak to so many things in his or her babbling indistinct language and smiling at things. If we stealthily go behind them and look for what they are smiling at and whom they are speaking to, we will see nothing particular that would catch our attention. They are speaking the language they have brought with them, and speaking to and laughing with who came along with them. This language of their's vanishes as the child develops caprice. That is why we do not hear or see anything at all. Look at that lovely radiance in the face of all infants; it is a reflection. We mistakenly think that the tiny little bud is speaking to itself which it never will do till it grows up as larger and foul as us. To a child everything has relevance, existence and individual personality-the leaf, the flower, the stone, the soil, the wind, the butterflies and the birds. That is how Nature's presence and conscience moulds attitude in humans. We call it the influence of God's presence. Because grown-up people are strong, they tend to deny the presence of providence. Because children are tender, weak and unpolluted, they need protection which they get from Nature and Providence. Even if we do not teach them about the presence of a God in our mortal words, they do feel such a caring and protective presence around them, such as those given them by their father, mother, big sister and brother. Sometimes they can be heard to be making and singing songs of excellent tunes, a reflection and proof of the civilization of the land from which they are coming. Is it not necessary that such a civilized, ardent sophisticated presence is needed in the Universe? Our very thought that such a presence is needed is the very manifestation of that presence. It is not a secret that the innocent radiance present in the face of all children in this world says farewell to them when they attain puberty, are self-reliant and are able to look after themselves. This is a very good and meaningful thread. The postor of this thread has asked a very relevant question. But philosophically speaking, asking 'can a child ever know about God if he was not taught about it' is like doubting whether the fish would be knowing about the water surrounding and enveloping it.

[Drkshadow03]

I think the answer is complicated. Many atheists, such as THE Atheist, would suggest we're all born atheist. That meme can be found across the atheist blogsphere. I think there is a touch of truth to this, but a glib overstatement. It's true, thought, that many people--perhaps even the majority--would clearly not be religious if there parents hadn't taught them. Religion passes along family lines in most cases.

However, I would suggest there is the very real problem of origins or the "our father had fathers" dilemma. The idea behind this is that you'll never get back far enough in history to a time where religions, magic, or mystical ideas didn't exist. Now this does support the idea that religion and traditions pass through families. However, there is also the implication that if you did manage to come to the source there would be an originator. If there was an originator of a religion and ideas about God or magical thinking, then it follows that its perfectly possible for someone to have a concept of God or a deity or the supernatural without necessarily being taught by their parents.

I have heard of at least one adult converting to Judaism who was raised without religion of any sort or a belief in God; they converted because they found out later on that they were Jewish by background and decided to explore their heritage.

If we locked a bunch of children in the room without teaching them anything (science or religion or math), I find it hard to believe that any honest person believes some of them wouldn't start developing a form of religion to explain their world without necessarily being taught the concepts.

So I think it's complicated. The Atheist is partially right, but I do think some people would eventually settle on supernatural explanations of the world, even if they weren't prompted by their parents.

[The Atheist]

...They are speaking the language they have brought with them, and speaking to and laughing with who came along with them...

Luckily, in the real world, we've been able to dismiss that idea by looking at feral children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child#Reality).

Humans are not Deep Thought and learn nothing without input.


I think the answer is complicated. Many atheists, such as THE Atheist, would suggest we're all born atheist.

You got it!

I don't ever say that myself, if I can help it, because rocks are also atheist.

I prefer to stick with the thesis that all theism is learned behaviour.


However, I would suggest there is the very real problem of origins or the "our father had fathers" dilemma. The idea behind this is that you'll never get back far enough in history to a time where religions, magic, or mystical ideas didn't exist. I realize at first glance this supports that religious ideas and traditions pass through families. However, there is also the implication that if you did manage to come to the source there would be an originator. If there was an originator, then it follows that its perfectly possible for someone to have a concept of God or a deity or the supernatural without necessarily being taught by their parents.

Yes indeed - it's turtles all the way down.

Although again, in the real world, we know that some cultures had no deity/ies (http://freethinker.co.uk/2008/11/08/how-an-amazonian-tribe-turned-a-missionary-into-an-atheist/).

I'm always amused that the originator theory doesn't also admit to the existence of the Loch Ness monster, alien abductions, astrology, reincarnation/s... [/ad nauseum].



If we locked a bunch of children in the room without teaching them anything (science or religion or math), I find it hard that people actually believe some of them wouldn't start developing a form of religion to explain their world without necessarily being taught the concepts.

The example of multiple feral children suggests otherwise, but even if true, it would merely confirm that humans are prone to abstract thought and superstition.

We know that already!

:D

[jajdude]

An interesting question. If a belief did not exist, would someone come upon it on his own? Is there independent thought? A child, soon to be an adult, would likely still develop a sense of wonder at the largeness of this world and beyond, I suppose. Maybe he wouldn't call it 'God' but he might just think, 'wow there is something vast and unknowable, much larger than just me or any and all of us' and maybe he wouldn't give it a name.

It's all just speculation I suppose. I believe the sense of wonder is a natural thing though, and doesn't need to be taught. We all want to learn and understand, don't we?

[Jerrybaldy]

Great question. There must be a phrase or word for a question that in its asking kills off all positive replies. Great question.

[Dr.reid_16]

Usually children before the age of 12 don't think about God or the "after life" UNLESS they're introduced to it. However, and I don't mean to brag or anything of the sort, but I began to ask questions about that subject when I was around the age of four. Advanced minds, can usually understand and respect all religions and theories. In conclusion, to answer the question "Can a child ever know about God if he was not taught about it?" I believe yes! A child can think about it and then read about it to "quench" their interests (as did I).

[cyberbob]

Well the belief in God had to start somewhere.

Obviously no one can spontaneously be Christian or Muslim or Hindu, but if a kid is born on a deserted island and never has human contact, he may still develop a primitive form of religion based on worshipping the Sun or things like that.

No particular religion is innate and neither is belief in God or we'd all necessarily be believers, but judging by the ubiquity of religion I'd say that we do have a tendency to explain our existence through myth when we can't through knowledge.

[ZTay]

There is a natural spiritual quality in all human beings. The desire to explore yourself, and your world. I think regardless of "indoctrination" or not, a child, once mature would sense the presence of something "more" in the world.

[Serena03]

I have asked myself this a lot as well. Due to our abundant acquisition of a better understanding of the world around us, it is less likely that a god would naturally be in the picture anymore unless planted there in the forehand. It was more necessary fifty thousand years ago at the break of civilization when the efforts of science had yet to emerge, the conclusion of a higher spirit seemed to be the best way to explain where this new strange sense of consciousness was coming from when philosophy essentially was the science of its day.

Some research would suggest that faith is an evolutionary instinct because it may have been used for survival, like the development of language, through shared thoughts and emotion as well as being territorial through the protection of what is considered 'sacred' to a particular group or individual. All God is now is an ancient tradition that wants to be preserved due to its easy and compelling 'explanation.' It's the true 'no child left behind' foundation.

Although God is practically irrelevant to the 21st century, many still have this deep-seated need to believe when purpose and direction cannot easily be explained on its own, science has yet to present an explanation as captivated, majestic and sacred as an unimaginable achievement to a kingdom of peace.

[OrphanPip]

Well the belief in God had to start somewhere.

Obviously no one can spontaneously be Christian or Muslim or Hindu, but if a kid is born on a deserted island and never has human contact, he may still develop a primitive form of religion based on worshipping the Sun or things like that.

No particular religion is innate and neither is belief in God or we'd all necessarily be believers, but judging by the ubiquity of religion I'd say that we do have a tendency to explain our existence through myth when we can't through knowledge.

It doesn't quite work this way. One thing many people neglect is that language is an invention, we are not innately born with the ability to reason and communicate in complex ways. Children raised in isolation are developmentally disabled.

Anthropologically, a sort of vague mysticism will predate the development of religion as an organized set of beliefs. After all, we have evidence of neanderthals burying their dead with personal belongings, which suggest some sort of developed rituals and the rudiments of religion. Something like the notion of a monotheistic god took thousands of generations to develop. So, it is highly unlikely something of that kind would be generated spontaneously, even basic mysticism isn't likely to occur spontaneously. A lot of ideas and other inventions need to come before a human being can even think at the level of trying to explain things in ultimate terms.

[Arrowni]

I have asked myself this a lot as well. Due to our abundant acquisition of a better understanding of the world around us, it is less likely that a god would naturally be in the picture anymore unless planted there in the forehand. It was more necessary fifty thousand years ago at the break of civilization when the efforts of science had yet to emerge, the conclusion of a higher spirit seemed to be the best way to explain where this new strange sense of consciousness was coming from when philosophy essentially was the science of its day.

Some research would suggest that faith is an evolutionary instinct because it may have been used for survival, like the development of language, through shared thoughts and emotion as well as being territorial through the protection of what is considered 'sacred' to a particular group or individual. All God is now is an ancient tradition that wants to be preserved due to its easy and compelling 'explanation.' It's the true 'no child left behind' foundation.

Although God is practically irrelevant to the 21st century, many still have this deep-seated need to believe when purpose and direction cannot easily be explained on its own, science has yet to present an explanation as captivated, majestic and sacred as an unimaginable achievement to a kingdom of peace.

If God is an evolutionary truth it's intrinsic to human nature right? Then we need to evolve out from divinity in order to really get rid of it.

[togre]

I love how the assumption is that there exists no God and children not being able to pick Him out of a line up the instant they are born is proof of this.

I'm not going to argue at length, but if you are interested in listening I'll state what the Bible teaches about the subject and answer any questions on that topic. This way, while we will never agree on the major point, we can at least be informed on each others true positions.


The Bible teaches that humans are able to figure out that there is some sort of higher power. They are able to do this based on the evidence God left in creation (the universe).

Hebrews 3:4 For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. --If you can across a house in the middle of the woods how would you assume it got there? Is the universe more or less complex and organized than a house?

Psalms19:1The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Romans 1:20 Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

From the created universe a human could reach true conclusions about the existence of a divine being, his power, wisdom and goodness (cf. the abundance of nature). From the human conscience the conclusion can be drawn that he is just--cares about right and wrong and punishes wickedness.

Romans 2:14,15 When Gentiles [non-Jews who are without the Bible] who do not have the law, do by nature things required in the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them

Some have drawn these conclusions (cf. some Greek philosophers) without being taught them. But this isn't enough. This is some generic god that would mesh with any number of religions. What is necessary to know about God is response to our rebellion.

1 Corinthians 2:9 No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.

To know God, we need him to come to us, to reveal himself to us. We can never "figure it out" on our own. That is why children need to be taught about him--because grown-ups do to. No one has thought this up or deduced this by themselves--ever. Because if God truly exists, could you really discover him--the hubris! Could an ant understand me by himself?

Of course if you start with the assumption (belief?) that there is no God, you can squeeze any data into that theory. But does it really support it, or even fit at all?

[G L Wilson]

There is a natural spiritual quality in all human beings. The desire to explore yourself, and your world. I think regardless of "indoctrination" or not, a child, once mature would sense the presence of something "more" in the world.

And what might this "more" be, may I ask?

[The Atheist]

Of course if you start with the assumption (belief?) that there is no God, you can squeeze any data into that theory. But does it really support it, or even fit at all?

Funnily enough, that's not how atheism works - perhaps you should catch up with the thread on what it actually means.

Quoting bible passages as a means of showing a god's existence is clever of you.

[ZTay]

And what might this "more" be, may I ask?

I think that IS the question to ask. :D

[hoope]

I believe that the story of Abraham sets an example ...
when he was questioning his people about how they are worshipping the idols which don't do any good to us .. No help us nor benefit us ....
and as he started to think and search for the right God ... and said i will worship the stars and by seeing the moon saying i will worship the moon its bigger.. Thus seeing the sun .. saying that its the biggest.. So this must be the right God.. and it set down ...
He said , " Oh i will then worship that who created all this "

People are usually born with an INSTINCT .. with the fact of knowing the GOD deep inside.. but its according to his parents that change him - its either they will make him Christian , or Hindu or Muslim or whatever..

[Panglossian]

And what might this "more" be, may I ask?

God knows, but human history has shown that it is somewhat "moreish". :smilielol5:

[G L Wilson]

How can one experience more than one can?

[cyberbob]

I believe that the story of Abraham sets an example ...
when he was questioning his people about how they are worshipping the idols which don't do any good to us .. No help us nor benefit us ....
and as he started to think and search for the right God ... and said i will worship the stars and by seeing the moon saying i will worship the moon its bigger.. Thus seeing the sun .. saying that its the biggest.. So this must be the right God.. and it set down ...
He said , " Oh i will then worship that who created all this "

People are usually born with an INSTINCT .. with the fact of knowing the GOD deep inside.. but its according to his parents that change him - its either they will make him Christian , or Hindu or Muslim or whatever..

People can't "usually" be born with an instinct. Either all humans have it or they don't.

Aborigines and ancient humans both believed Earth was flat. That doesn't mean believing that Earth is flat is an instinct or that we "know God deep inside

[G L Wilson]

People can't "usually" be born with an instinct. Either all humans have it or they don't.

Aborigines and ancient humans both believed Earth was flat. That doesn't mean believing that Earth is flat is an instinct or that we "know God deep inside

We begin at nothing and settle on something and then end at nothing.

[BienvenuJDC]

Excellent comments, however, wasted on many of those who are here, but at least the message was given. Thank you!


I love how the assumption is that there exists no God and children not being able to pick Him out of a line up the instant they are born is proof of this.

I'm not going to argue at length, but if you are interested in listening I'll state what the Bible teaches about the subject and answer any questions on that topic. This way, while we will never agree on the major point, we can at least be informed on each others true positions.


The Bible teaches that humans are able to figure out that there is some sort of higher power. They are able to do this based on the evidence God left in creation (the universe).

Hebrews 3:4 For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. --If you can across a house in the middle of the woods how would you assume it got there? Is the universe more or less complex and organized than a house?

Psalms19:1The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Romans 1:20 Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

From the created universe a human could reach true conclusions about the existence of a divine being, his power, wisdom and goodness (cf. the abundance of nature). From the human conscience the conclusion can be drawn that he is just--cares about right and wrong and punishes wickedness.

Romans 2:14,15 When Gentiles [non-Jews who are without the Bible] who do not have the law, do by nature things required in the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them

Some have drawn these conclusions (cf. some Greek philosophers) without being taught them. But this isn't enough. This is some generic god that would mesh with any number of religions. What is necessary to know about God is response to our rebellion.

1 Corinthians 2:9 No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.

To know God, we need him to come to us, to reveal himself to us. We can never "figure it out" on our own. That is why children need to be taught about him--because grown-ups do to. No one has thought this up or deduced this by themselves--ever. Because if God truly exists, could you really discover him--the hubris! Could an ant understand me by himself?

Of course if you start with the assumption (belief?) that there is no God, you can squeeze any data into that theory. But does it really support it, or even fit at all?

[G L Wilson]

I love how the assumption is that there exists no God and children not being able to pick Him out of a line up the instant they are born is proof of this.

I'm not going to argue at length, but if you are interested in listening I'll state what the Bible teaches about the subject and answer any questions on that topic. This way, while we will never agree on the major point, we can at least be informed on each others true positions.


The Bible teaches that humans are able to figure out that there is some sort of higher power. They are able to do this based on the evidence God left in creation (the universe).

Hebrews 3:4 For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. --If you can across a house in the middle of the woods how would you assume it got there? Is the universe more or less complex and organized than a house?

Psalms19:1The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Romans 1:20 Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

From the created universe a human could reach true conclusions about the existence of a divine being, his power, wisdom and goodness (cf. the abundance of nature). From the human conscience the conclusion can be drawn that he is just--cares about right and wrong and punishes wickedness.

Romans 2:14,15 When Gentiles [non-Jews who are without the Bible] who do not have the law, do by nature things required in the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them

Some have drawn these conclusions (cf. some Greek philosophers) without being taught them. But this isn't enough. This is some generic god that would mesh with any number of religions. What is necessary to know about God is response to our rebellion.

1 Corinthians 2:9 No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.

To know God, we need him to come to us, to reveal himself to us. We can never "figure it out" on our own. That is why children need to be taught about him--because grown-ups do to. No one has thought this up or deduced this by themselves--ever. Because if God truly exists, could you really discover him--the hubris! Could an ant understand me by himself?

Of course if you start with the assumption (belief?) that there is no God, you can squeeze any data into that theory. But does it really support it, or even fit at all?

An ant would understand me too if I squashed it flat!

[ZTay]

How can one experience more than one can?

Capacities change. Your peak of understanding yesterday doesn't reveal the level to come. I think that is what the spiritual journey of life entails. More understanding, more compassion, more good of all things because heaven knows none of us are sufficient. That more is progress. Mystical progress, intellectual progress or emotional; depending on if the one in question be Alyosha, Ivan or Dmitri.

[G L Wilson]

Capacities change. Your peak of understanding yesterday doesn't reveal the level to come. I think that is what the spiritual journey of life entails. More understanding, more compassion, more good of all things because heaven knows none of us are sufficient. That more is progress. Mystical progress, intellectual progress or emotional; depending on if the one in question be Alyosha, Ivan or Dmitri.

There is probably some truth in what you said, ZTay, however old age feels like a loss to me, a tiring out of one's soul. One learns more and more, the knowledge seems to do no-one no good, that there seems nothing to tie it to. It feels like the pursuit of knowledge is never sufficient. There is always more and more, more and more of nothing but disappointment. As I see it, there is no mysticism in despair, life has no real point. I could write a book on nihilism but it would depress me further.

[YesNo]

I often feel that we have implanted a belief in children about the existence of God or else they would have never known about God. This means our belief is a form of programming or else all would be non believers.



People are usually born with an INSTINCT .. with the fact of knowing the GOD deep inside.. but its according to his parents that change him - its either they will make him Christian , or Hindu or Muslim or whatever..

I was reading Kevin Nelson's The Spiritual Doorway in the Brain: A Neurologist's Search for the God Experience. As a neurologist he was able to locate our ability to have spiritual experiences in REM sleep which is more basic to our nature than even language.

What this means is that hoope is correct. Religion, in its most basic sense, is not learned, but is part of our nature. We do get the details of the various traditions we follow from our culture, but were those traditions absent not only would our minds be able to rebuild similar traditions, our minds would rebuild them.

Although some might think that this reduces religious experience to a delusional dream state since neurologists have been able to locate the "doorway" to parts of our brain associated with REM sleep, I think it is more interesting than that. Our eyes are the doorway to the visual environment. Our ears are the doorway to the aural environment. That neurologists have found the doorway to our spiritual environment does not imply that what we understand by using that spiritual door is any less authentic than what we see with our eyes or what we hear with our ears.

[ZTay]

There is probably some truth in what you said, ZTay, however old age feels like a loss to me, a tiring out of one's soul. One learns more and more, the knowledge seems to do no-one no good, that there seems nothing to tie it to. It feels like the pursuit of knowledge is never sufficient. There is always more and more, more and more of nothing but disappointment. As I see it, there is no mysticism in despair, life has no real point. I could write a book on nihilism but it would depress me further.

I take that as a warning.

[G L Wilson]

I take that as a warning.

Life is too short to be without ambition but when that ambition extends past yourself into the the lives of others it can become bullying if not plain bloody torture. For hell is the invention of a malicious mind and heaven is its reward. Force must be applied gently and gradually, otherwise serious damage will occur. I am not against indoctrination as such but how it is applied. Kindness is kindness's reward.

[ZTay]

I think proselytizing has been so highly examined, criticized and condemned that it has been cursed even when it's not taking place. Many believers are sensitive to the perception that they are bullying with their beliefs, only not as sensitive as non-believers are that they are being bullied.

[G L Wilson]

I think proselytizing has been so highly examined, criticized and condemned that it has been cursed even when it's not taking place. Many believers are sensitive to the perception that they are bullying with their beliefs, only not as sensitive as non-believers are that they are being bullied.

There are attempts to warm up God, none of which are successful. The Lord is a cold fish, and nothing can be done about it.

[blazeofglory]

There are attempts to warm up God, none of which are successful. The Lord is a cold fish, and nothing can be done about it.

Sardonically appealing!

[ZTay]

I think we have to blame ourselves before God. Perhaps it is we that is the poor catch? God throws us back because we aren't big enough yet.

[G L Wilson]

I think we have to blame ourselves before God. Perhaps it is we that is the poor catch? God throws us back because we aren't big enough yet.

That's beautiful, just fantastic.

[PSRemeshChandra]

It is the collective knowledge of the society that enables us to know about the existence or non-existence of a God. Because we know about it, we teach our children on those lines. But how did the first person arrived at the idea of the existence of a God? Naturally he thought it himself. Who can deny the assumption that this natural process won't be repeated in history? Anyway, history is nothing but repetition. Therefore it is only natural and logical to assume that, whether we trouble ourselves to teach them or not, children will one day reach the same conclusions as we did. Don't ever even think that they won't mature someday. This gaining Ultimate Knowledge- that was what mankind chose to do in the Garden of Eden at the expense and sacrifice of Eternal Life. By eating from the Tree of Knowledge, mankind was limiting their life span and opening up new vistas of learning.

[G L Wilson]

It is the collective knowledge of the society that enables us to know about the existence or non-existence of a God. Because we know about it, we teach our children on those lines. But how did the first person arrived at the idea of the existence of a God? Naturally he thought it himself. Who can deny the assumption that this natural process won't be repeated in history? Anyway, history is nothing but repetition. Therefore it is only natural and logical to assume that, whether we trouble ourselves to teach them or not, children will one day reach the same conclusions as we did. Don't ever even think that they won't mature someday. This gaining Ultimate Knowledge- that was what mankind chose to do in the Garden of Eden at the expense and sacrifice of Eternal Life. By eating from the Tree of Knowledge, mankind was limiting their life span and opening up new vistas of learning.

Whatever we teach the young, we teach at a risk.

[cyberbob]

@PSRemeshChandra

The first person and the first person to believe in God are two different things. Especially if the god in question is the Christian god, which you seem to be referring to.

The first humans on Earth (Cro-Magnon) were probably not religious at all; they certainly were not Christian.

Children won't "mature" into believers. If anything, religion will develop over multiple generations.

[ralfyman]

Yes, because one will never be able to answer all questions regarding the universe.

[G L Wilson]

Yes, because one will never be able to answer all questions regarding the universe.

We don't need to.

[LadyGodiva]

"A belief is like a guillotine, just as heavy, just as light."

Kafka

[G L Wilson]

"A belief is like a guillotine, just as heavy, just as light."

Kafka

Belief is much too heavy and much too light for a child.

[ralfyman]

We don't need to.

And yet we still do.

[PoeticPassions]

Well I definitely wouldn't have believed in Santa Clause had not my parents done everything they could to have me believe in him.

But in all seriousness, this is a difficult question to answer and not one that really can be absolutely decided upon. Personally, I know that if my parents had introduced God to me that I probably would have believed in him or something like him. However, I was brought up in a Communist household where there was no talk of God whatsoever. I did not know about Jesus, about any higher being (other than S.C. as I mentioned :)), or about religion. My parents never denounced any of these things, but we never even talked about them. I never asked nor did I ever wonder if there was some higher being out there... not until I was 8 years old, upon which which I encountered a Nativity scene for the first time, and asked about it, did I even know of the concept of God.

With all of that being said, I do think that even if an idea is not introduced to us as children, that it can possibly arise out of us regardless. Perhaps there is something to be said about some people having an inherent spirituality... and coming to their own conclusions about God. I mean someone had to conceive of him first, right?

But I am still uncertain of any of this...

[The Atheist]

Perhaps there is something to be said about some people having an inherent spirituality... and coming to their own conclusions about God.

It's pretty clear that we are hard-wired for "spirituality" or whatever term suits. (I struggle to find a better one, and I can't say bull.... :)) Of people who don't believe in one of the present gods, the great majority of them still have faith in some other form of spirituality. Buddhism, Wicca, psychics, astrology, reincarnation... Philosophical materialists are few & far between.

A good case can be made that it's an evolutionary trait, because religion certainly acts as a coherent.

[Miss 87]

another question comes to my mind
how do birds learn to fly? consciously _ a certain input _ or by something called instinct!
what is instinct? is it something we born with?
how do we unerstand some words that we haven not known before?
what is LAD _ language acqueisition device that Chomsky came to?

[literary lew]

I often feel that we have implanted a belief in children about the existence of God or else they would have never known about God. This means our belief is a form of programming or else all would be non believers. Some of you may agree and some may not. But this is the question I want to put forth to you and create a platform for all to speak up our minds, learn from each other and of course share in the course.

When love begins to sicken and decay it uses an enforced ceremony. [Julius Caesar] William Shakespeare
23

[G L Wilson]

When love begins to sicken and decay it uses an enforced ceremony. [Julius Caesar] William Shakespeare
23

Excellent quote.

[stuntpickle]

Apparently, atheist incompetence knows no bounds. You would think people in a literature forum would actually do some reading. A few recent studies suggest the answer to this question is yes. Of course, the studies engage in the usual question begging by presuming that there is, in fact, no God to start with, but, nonetheless, even the most militant neo-Darwinians now generally believe religion to be hard-wired into the brain, contrary to what a hack like Dawkins thinks. Just one article pulled at random from a long list:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.html

[Varenne Rodin]

I read things from The Atheist that seem like they would have to inspire instant understanding, yet people continue to spew cultist sentiment. It's not just misunderstanding. It's a willful refusal to acknowledge the obvious. Persistent theism is baffling.

Let's just make 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' the new bible, then maybe I'll join in for the frenzy.

[MystyrMystyry]

Scary thought Varenne - a goggle-enabled phone with the words Don't Panic! on the screen in large friendly comic sans - shudder!

And a button to take you straight to Wikipaedia for the latest disambiguations:

'And lo did Moses carry forth from the mount two tablets: one an ipad 3 and the other a hp touchpad - sadly one is no more, and sadder still, one is yet to come...'

[joelavine]

Someone came up with God first without benefit of lesson. Therefore, someone could come up with God today without being taught of God. While I am not myself a believer, I would think believers would agree that such a person might as well be a child. For what, meaning no disrespect - quite the contrary - could be more innocent and childlike than to believe that we are being watched over by a benevolent presence? And what would be more natural and childlike than to question what it was that brought life all about and to consider the possibility that it was an intelligent force? Isn't that exactly what children do when they ask their parents "where did I come from?"

[Varenne Rodin]

Scary thought Varenne - a goggle-enabled phone with the words Don't Panic! on the screen in large friendly comic sans - shudder!

And a button to take you straight to Wikipaedia for the latest disambiguations:

'And lo did Moses carry forth from the mount two tablets: one an ipad 3 and the other a hp touchpad - sadly one is no more, and sadder still, one is yet to come...'

Hehe. You're adorable.

[OrphanPip]

Apparently, atheist incompetence knows no bounds. You would think people in a literature forum would actually do some reading. A few recent studies suggest the answer to this question is yes. Of course, the studies engage in the usual question begging by presuming that there is, in fact, no God to start with, but, nonetheless, even the most militant neo-Darwinians now generally believe religion to be hard-wired into the brain, contrary to what a hack like Dawkins thinks. Just one article pulled at random from a long list:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.html

You misunderstand the research you are quoting.

The concept of developed religion is cultural and requires a groundwork of innovations which are not innate. Humans have a biological inclination to group thought and beliefs that help organize social groups. The author of the article also misrepresents what Dawkins arguments about indoctrination actually is, which is that the complex sets of religious behaviors and beliefs are learned (which is indisputable as one needs to learn what it means to be a Hindu or a Christian). This does not contradict the fact that we have inclinations towards believing impractical things. The fact that we have a tendency towards irrational explanations (which are not in themselves religious anyway, as homeopathy is irrational but not religious), does not suggest that people are born innately religious. This is mere spin by media who misunderstand science.

I'm not exactly sure what a militant neo-Darwinist is supposed to be either, since Neodarwinism is simply the integration of modern genetics with evolutionary theory.

Perhaps one should make a point of not being ignorant of biology and anthropology before condemning the supposed incompetence of others.

[G L Wilson]

You misunderstand the research you are quoting.

The concept of developed religion is cultural and requires a groundwork of innovations which are not innate. Humans have a biological inclination to group thought and beliefs that help organize social groups. The author of the article also misrepresents what Dawkins arguments about indoctrination actually is, which is that the complex sets of religious behaviors and beliefs are learned (which is indisputable as one needs to learn what it means to be a Hindu or a Christian). This does not contradict the fact that we have inclinations towards believing impractical things. The fact that we have a tendency towards irrational explanations (which are not in themselves religious anyway, as homeopathy is irrational but not religious), does not suggest that people are born innately religious. This is mere spin by media who misunderstand science.

I'm not exactly sure what a militant neo-Darwinist is supposed to be either, since Neodarwinism is simply the integration of modern genetics with evolutionary theory.

Perhaps one should make a point of not being ignorant of biology and anthropology before condemning the supposed incompetence of others.

I suppose what he means by neodarwinism is the worst excesses of the eugenics movement being brought back to life in the present day. It is a common fear of the unlearned. stuntpickle doesn't know his ankle from his elbow, for he wouldn't be argung for but against what he proposes otherwise.

Also, Richard Dawkins has gone in for his fair share of biological determinism which he has had to fall back from. OrphanPip as a biological scientist must know that he is being closely monitored, see how he carefully treads the line.

Religion is like homosexuality, it is learnt very early on. Sexuality is not a thing to be tampered with, but religion is an open target like pedophiles are.

[stuntpickle]

You misunderstand the research you are quoting.

The concept of developed religion is cultural and requires a groundwork of innovations which are not innate. Humans have a biological inclination to group thought and beliefs that help organize social groups. The author of the article also misrepresents what Dawkins arguments about indoctrination actually is, which is that the complex sets of religious behaviors and beliefs are learned (which is indisputable as one needs to learn what it means to be a Hindu or a Christian). This does not contradict the fact that we have inclinations towards believing impractical things. The fact that we have a tendency towards irrational explanations (which are not in themselves religious anyway, as homeopathy is irrational but not religious), does not suggest that people are born innately religious. This is mere spin by media who misunderstand science.

I'm not exactly sure what a militant neo-Darwinist is supposed to be either, since Neodarwinism is simply the integration of modern genetics with evolutionary theory.

Perhaps one should make a point of not being ignorant of biology and anthropology before condemning the supposed incompetence of others.

I'm hardly willing to ignore your question begging. The notion that religion is simply a cultural artifact isn't something you get to simply assume, when it is, in fact, the major point of contention. Of course, I wouldn't expect much more from someone who couldn't distinguish between a syllogism and his own anus.

Your suggestion that neo-Darwinianism "is simply the integration of modern genetics with evolutionary theory" only means you haven't heard of evolutionary literary criticism, evolutionary epistemology, evolutionary anthropology or evolutionary psychology, all of which are variants of the same scientistic (note: not scientific) determinism with which a number of neo-Darwinians are trying to infect every variety of human inquiry.

Your suggestion that someone, somewhere, failed to grasp the subtlety of Dawkins's argument implies that something vaguely resembling an argument exists somewhere in Dawkins's writings on atheism, which is hardly true. The closest he gets is in The God Delusion when he argues against the straw man of a contingent God, which no one believes in, and declares in a glorious fit of absurdity that God must have evolved--something that had even other atheists rolling their eyes.

The fact that you think neo-Darwinianism is simply relegated to a development in biology is a bit odd since we're discussing the public face of neo-Darwinianism who just so happened to demand that everyone stop believing in God. Never mind the fact that the term predates the developments to which you're referring.

Because it's evident that you haven't read any of the real literature in regards to the theist/atheist debate, I should probably tell you that the best argument to come from the debate is widely considered to be Plantinga's thorough refutation of the scientism on offer from people like Dawkins.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Of course, I wouldn't expect much more from someone who couldn't distinguish between a syllogism and his own anus.

Oh, goody. Another nice member has joined the forums!

[G L Wilson]

I'm hardly willing to ignore your question begging. The notion that religion is simply a cultural artifact isn't something you get to simply assume, when it is, in fact, the major point of contention. Of course, I wouldn't expect much more from someone who couldn't distinguish between a syllogism and his own anus.

Your suggestion that neo-Darwinianism "is simply the integration of modern genetics with evolutionary theory" only means you haven't heard of evolutionary literary criticism, evolutionary epistemology, evolutionary anthropology or evolutionary psychology, all of which are variants of the same scientistic (note: not scientific) determinism with which a number of neo-Darwinians are trying to infect every variety of human inquiry.

Your suggestion that someone, somewhere, failed to grasp the subtlety of Dawkins's argument implies that something vaguely resembling an argument exists somewhere in Dawkins's writings on atheism, which is hardly true. The closest he gets is in The God Delusion when he argues against the straw man of a contingent God, which no one believes in, and declares in a glorious fit of absurdity that God must have evolved--something that had even other atheists rolling their eyes.

The fact that you think neo-Darwinianism is simply relegated to a development in biology is a bit odd since we're discussing the public face of neo-Darwinianism who just so happened to demand that everyone stop believing in God. Never mind the fact that the term predates the developments to which you're referring.

Because it's evident that you haven't read any of the real literature in regards to the theist/atheist debate, I should probably tell you that the best argument to come from the debate is widely considered to be Plantinga's thorough refutation of the scientism on offer from people like Dawkins.

Scientism is a view that most scientists themselves would reject including Dawkins.

[Varenne Rodin]

Religion is like homosexuality, it is learnt very early on. Sexuality is not a thing to be tampered with, but religion is an open target like pedophiles are.

Sexuality isn't learned, it's genetic. There have been cases of identical twins, orphaned at birth, being adopted and raised in separate households, in separate geographical areas, who don't know each other growing up, and are both homosexual.

[stuntpickle]

Scientism is a view that most scientists themselves would reject including Dawkins.

Dude, you're so funny. Perhaps you should actually read/listen to what Dawkins says. There's an interview he does with George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, in which he explicitly states that science has a position of primacy in all forms of inquiry. If that ain't scientism, nothing is. And anyway, Plantinga's refutation also includes naturalism, to which a great number of scientists adhere.

[G L Wilson]

Sexuality isn't learned, it's genetic. There have been cases of identical twins, orphaned at birth, being adopted and raised in separate households, in separate geographical areas, who don't know each other growing up, and are both homosexual.

Twin studies prove nothing, two strangers are as likely as not to find some things in common between them.

[G L Wilson]

Dude, you're so funny. Perhaps you should actually read/listen to what Dawkins says. There's an interview he does with George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory, in which he explicitly states that science has a position of primacy in all forms of inquiry. If that ain't scientism, nothing is. And anyway, Plantinga's refutation also includes naturalism, to which a great number of scientists adhere.

What's wrong in saying that science is primary to inquiry? And what's wrong with naturalism, you could do with some, for instance?!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Sexuality is genetic.

[G L Wilson]

Sexuality is genetic.

That is one opinion.

[OrphanPip]

I'm hardly willing to ignore your question begging. The notion that religion is simply a cultural artifact isn't something you get to simply assume, when it is, in fact, the major point of contention. Of course, I wouldn't expect much more from someone who couldn't distinguish between a syllogism and his own anus.

I didn't say religion is simply a cultural production, as it certainly draws on certain innate preferences for mysticism. What I said is that religion as it exists today is complex and developed over several generations. The first humans did not have complex language, the first humans would not have been able to articulate something like the Christian trinity. Thus, it is obvious that we need a cultural and developmental framework before people can be religious in the modern sense. As we can see from children who are raised in isolation from other humans, they become severely developmentally disabled in comparison to what we expect of properly socialized humans. Biology and culture effect each other, our culture builds off of certain biological inevitabilities, and in turn culture effects how certain traits get selected for.



Your suggestion that neo-Darwinianism "is simply the integration of modern genetics with evolutionary theory" only means you haven't heard of evolutionary literary criticism, evolutionary epistemology, evolutionary anthropology or evolutionary psychology, all of which are variants of the same scientistic (note: not scientific) determinism with which a number of neo-Darwinians are trying to infect every variety of human inquiry.

No, I am saying you are misusing the word neodarwinist in some nonsensicle jerry-rigged term divorced from what the word actually means. Neodarwinism has existed since the early 20th century, as articulated most clearly by Huxley. None of the multiple applications of evolutionary theory have anything to do with what neodarwinism is. I have heard of all those fields, I am a biologist (an immunologist mind you, so not an evolutionary biologist) so I am fully aware of the applications of evolutionary theory to multiple domains. However, your neodarwinist bogeyman is nothing more than a silly strawman you've invented to rail against.



Your suggestion that someone, somewhere, failed to grasp the subtlety of Dawkins's argument implies that something vaguely resembling an argument exists somewhere in Dawkins's writings on atheism, which is hardly true. The closest he gets is in The God Delusion when he argues against the straw man of a contingent God, which no one believes in, and declares in a glorious fit of absurdity that God must have evolved--something that had even other atheists rolling their eyes.

I don't particularly care about Dawkins, I've never bothered to read his writings on religion. However, when someone says that the claim that religion is learned behavior is contradicted by the evidence presented, they better actually argue how that is so. That leaves two possibilities, the journalist did not understand what Dawkins was saying, or they did not understand the research they were using to critique Dawkins. Both are equally possible. Moreover, I'd point out you are critiquing a completely different aspect of Dawkins' argument than what is relevant to the article in discussion.



The fact that you think neo-Darwinianism is simply relegated to a development in biology is a bit odd since we're discussing the public face of neo-Darwinianism who just so happened to demand that everyone stop believing in God. Never mind the fact that the term predates the developments to which you're referring.

No, I don't see what secular humanism or militant atheism has to do with evolution at all, apart from the fact that secularist may find it convenient that evolution adequately explains the diversification of species without recourse to supernatural explanations. You are trying to politicize the value of a scientific theory, neodarwinian evolutionary theory, for no apparent reason. I've never heard anyone but raving creationist refer to anyone as a "Darwinist" in an ideological sense. I am a Darwinist in so far that I find Darwinian evolutionary theory to be the best available explanation for evoltuion.



Because it's evident that you haven't read any of the real literature in regards to the theist/atheist debate, I should probably tell you that the best argument to come from the debate is widely considered to be Plantinga's thorough refutation of the scientism on offer from people like Dawkins.

I've never read Hitchens, Dawkins, or any of the so called new atheist's writings on religions (I have read Dawkins early books on evolutionary biology which are top notch). On the other hand, I have read DesCartes, Aquinas, Augustine, Nietsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Hume, Mill, Smith, Ascombe: a range of both religious and non-religious thinkers who have addressed the subject of religion. My views of religion derive not from any "scientism" straw man, but more from Enlightenment Liberal ideas of pragmatic empiricism and societal secularism. I don't care about the theist/atheist debate at this moment, I care about your silly condescension and asinine critiques of things you clearly don't understand.

[stuntpickle]

What's wrong in saying that science is primary to inquiry? And what's wrong with naturalism, you could do with some, for instance?!

What’s wrong with saying science is primary in all forms of inquiry? Are you kidding? That’s scientism by definition—you know, the thing you say everyone rejects.

What’s wrong with naturalism? Only that it’s self-defeating in that by proposing some fundamental aspects of human cognition are illusions—for instance, metaphysical truths—it casts the same suspicion on itself because it is a product of the same cognition. But you don’t really care, do you? You just take it for granted that everyone should be a naturalist and that the tenets of an antiquated empiricism are somehow still relevant despite Godel having put the kibosh on that nonsense nearly a century ago.

[OrphanPip]

What’s wrong with naturalism? Only that it’s self-defeating in that by proposing some fundamental aspects of human cognition are illusions—for instance, metaphysical truths—it casts the same suspicion on itself because it is a product of the same cognition. But you don’t really care, do you? You just take it for granted that everyone should be a naturalist and that the tenets of an antiquated empiricism are somehow still relevant despite Godel having put the kibosh on that nonsense nearly a century ago.

Yet, we would have quite a difficult time of advancing scientific knowledge without the assumption of methodological naturalism. It is hardly nonsense, but a practical assumption that allows us to make useful conclusions. You have a fun way of making claims of consensus about things which are quite disputed.

[Varenne Rodin]

Twin studies prove nothing, two strangers are as likely as not to find some things in common between them.

They share identical genetic makeup, and they are both coincidentally gay? Do you have any idea how improbable it is to pick two strangers out of a crowd that are both homosexual? I have never understood the insistence that people "learn" homosexuality. Who is teaching it?

[G L Wilson]

What’s wrong with saying science is primary in all forms of inquiry? Are you kidding? That’s scientism by definition—you know, the thing you say everyone rejects.

What’s wrong with naturalism? Only that it’s self-defeating in that by proposing some fundamental aspects of human cognition are illusions—for instance, metaphysical truths—it casts the same suspicion on itself because it is a product of the same cognition. But you don’t really care, do you? You just take it for granted that everyone should be a naturalist and that the tenets of an antiquated empiricism are somehow still relevant despite Godel having put the kibosh on that nonsense nearly a century ago.

To transcribe text correctly is the first duty of a scholar. The second is to not talk ****.

[OrphanPip]

They share identical genetic makeup, and they are both coincidentally gay? Do you have any idea how improbable it is to pick two strangers out of a crowd that are both homosexual? I have never understood the insistence that people "learn" homosexuality. Who is teaching it?

I don't want to get into a debate on the biological causes of homosexuality, but the evidence overwhelmingly supports in utero determination of sexual orientation. However, I think the evidence supports it being partially genetic (due largely to the genetics of the mother) and partially environmental (since we see correlation in birth order and age of mother, which could have hormonal or even immunological causes). My former tutor was a specialist on the interaction of the maternal immune system on the fetus, and he felt it was cause by an immunologically driven feminization of the male brain.

[Varenne Rodin]

I don't want to get into a debate on the biological causes of homosexuality, but the evidence overwhelmingly supports in utero determination of sexual orientation. However, I think the evidence supports it being partially genetic (due largely to the genetics of the mother) and partially environmental (since we see correlation in birth order and age of mother, which could have hormonal or even immunological causes). My former tutor was a specialist on the interaction of the maternal immune system on the fetus, and he felt it was cause by an immunologically driven feminization of the male brain.

I like your explanation much better than my feeble one. Thanks, Pip.

G L acts like grown adults wake up one day and decide to change into homosexuals. I think that's a silly notion, but I don't really want to spur a debate about it either. :)

[G L Wilson]

They share identical genetic makeup, and they are both coincidentally gay? Do you have any idea how improbable it is to pick two strangers out of a crowd that are both homosexual? I have never understood the insistence that people "learn" homosexuality. Who is teaching it?

Unfortunately, homosexuals cannot win both ways. There are those loonies that reckon homosexuals can be re-educated about their homosexuality. There are those loonies that reckon gayness is the expression of a gene or genes and not humanity. And there are the meek in the middle that simply wish to survive both extremes.

[G L Wilson]

I like your explanation much better than my feeble one. Thanks, Pip.

G L acts like grown adults wake up one day and decide to change into homosexuals. I think that's a silly notion, but I don't really want to spur a debate about it either. :)

When did I say that homosexuality was a lifestyle choice? The conflation of my views with those of the religious right makes me very angry. I give more weight to nurture than nature and the next minute I am supporting crackpots.

[Varenne Rodin]

Don't be angry, G L. You said sexuality is learned early in life. I wondered how you suppose it is learned. I'm well aware that all human personalities are developed by nature AND nurture, but is homosexuality a character trait, or something more physiological? I tend to think it's the latter. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings by saying so, and I'm not some "loony crackpot," so please don't suggest that I am. I'm a research assistant, a student. I still have lots to learn. Maybe in my schoolings I can learn gay. ;)

[Alexander III]

That is one opinion.

So (assuming you are a straight man) you believe you could force yourself into becoming a gay man, to become fully lustful for the male body and repulsed by the female body?

[G L Wilson]

So (assuming you are a straight man) you believe you could force yourself into becoming a gay man, to become fully lustful for the male body and repulsed by the female body?

Of course not. But genetics convinces me of nothing on its own.

[stuntpickle]

I didn't say religion is simply a cultural production, as it certainly draws on certain innate preferences for mysticism. What I said is that religion as it exists today is complex and developed over several generations. The first humans did not have complex language, the first humans would not have been able to articulate something like the Christian trinity. Thus, it is obvious that we need a cultural and developmental framework before people can be religious in the modern sense. As we can see from children who are raised in isolation from other humans, they become severely developmentally disabled in comparison to what we expect of properly socialized humans. Biology and culture effect each other, our culture builds off of certain biological inevitabilities, and in turn culture effects how certain traits get selected for.

"Certain biological inevitabilities" sounds, oh I don't know, pseudo-deterministic and, oh I don't know, like precisely what I was talking about. The problem with people like you is that you have such gaping holes in your intellectual vision that you can't even imagine what you're not seeing, which I will shortly show you.




No, I am saying you are misusing the word neodarwinist in some nonsensicle jerry-rigged term divorced from what the word actually means. Neodarwinism has existed since the early 20th century, as articulated most clearly by Huxley. None of the multiple applications of evolutionary theory have anything to do with what neodarwinism is. I have heard of all those fields, I am a biologist (an immunologist mind you, so not an evolutionary biologist) so I am fully aware of the applications of evolutionary theory to multiple domains. However, your neodarwinist bogeyman is nothing more than a silly strawman you've invented to rail against.

You're so funny. I assume you have a web browser and, thus, have access to a search function, which would presumably enable you to understand that the term did not originate with Huxley or in the 20th Century. You say that I'm talking about a "neodarwinian bogeyman," but that's hardly the case when there's a self-professed movement to unify all fields of study in a sort of mechanistic jumble under the banner of neo-Darwinianism.


I don't particularly care about Dawkins, I've never bothered to read his writings on religion. However, when someone says that the claim that religion is learned behavior is contradicted by the evidence presented, they better actually argue how that is so. That leaves two possibilities, the journalist did not understand what Dawkins was saying, or they did not understand the research they were using to critique Dawkins. Both are equally possible. Moreover, I'd point out you are critiquing a completely different aspect of Dawkins' argument than what is relevant to the article in discussion.

You are so ridiculous. The only reason I'm not referencing a particular argument that Dawkins makes about indoctrination is because no such argument exists. You are obviously incapable of distinguishing an argument from a flat assertion. Dawkins doesn't come close to stringing together a coherent sequence of necessarily following conclusions from a reliable premise. The only time he even tries, it results in a total disaster, which is what I critiqued.

Second, your notions of evidentiary obligation regarding metaphysical claims are laughably antique. You don’t even understand that religious beliefs can be properly considered basic, like knowledge of goodness and, thus, require no evidence. This isn’t simply a quaint Baptist idea tossed around at Sunday school, which leads us to….



I've never read Hitchens, Dawkins, or any of the so called new atheist's writings on religions (I have read Dawkins early books on evolutionary biology which are top notch). On the other hand, I have read DesCartes, Aquinas, Augustine, Nietsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Hume, Mill, Smith, Ascombe: a range of both religious and non-religious thinkers who have addressed the subject of religion. My views of religion derive not from any "scientism" straw man, but more from Enlightenment Liberal ideas of pragmatic empiricism and societal secularism. I don't care about the theist/atheist debate at this moment, I care about your silly condescension and asinine critiques of things you clearly don't understand.

The problem here is that you're stuck in the wrong century. Just so you know Romanticism is more recent than your Enlightenment ideals. Your empiricism was run out of the academy, along with the logical positivists, in the early 20th Century thanks to Godel and his theorems of incompleteness. The problem here is that you simply have no idea what you're talking about--just like most adherents of popular atheism. What you don't understand is that the theistic philosophy you so clearly disdain is now a serious academic movement that has nothing to do with young Earth creationists and is a direct response to the destruction of the dead-end empiricism you still maintain.

If you're really curious what's wrong with empiricism just think about the last time you empirically observed a justification of empiricism. Empiricism refuted itself. Welcome to the 1930s.

[G L Wilson]

"Certain biological inevitabilities" sounds, oh I don't know, pseudo-deterministic and, oh I don't know, like precisely what I was talking about. The problem with people like you is that you have such gaping holes in your intellectual vision that you can't even imagine what you're not seeing, which I will shortly show you.





You're so funny. I assume you have a web browser and, thus, have access to a search function, which would presumably enable you to understand that the term did not originate with Huxley or in the 20th Century. You say that I'm talking about a "neodarwinian bogeyman," but that's hardly the case when there's a self-professed movement to unify all fields of study in a sort of mechanistic jumble under the banner of neo-Darwinianism.



You are so ridiculous. The only reason I'm not referencing a particular argument that Dawkins makes about indoctrination is because no such argument exists. You are obviously incapable of distinguishing an argument from a flat assertion. Dawkins doesn't come close to stringing together a coherent sequence of necessarily following conclusions from a reliable premise. The only time he even tries, it results in a total disaster, which is what I critiqued.

Second, your notions of evidentiary obligation regarding metaphysical claims are laughably antique. You don’t even understand that religious beliefs can be properly considered basic, like knowledge of goodness and, thus, require no evidence. This isn’t simply a quaint Baptist idea tossed around at Sunday school, which leads us to….




The problem here is that you're stuck in the wrong century. Just so you know Romanticism is more recent than your Enlightenment ideals. Your empiricism was run out of the academy, along with the logical positivists, in the early 20th Century thanks to Godel and his theorems of incompleteness. The problem here is that you simply have no idea what you're talking about--just like most adherents of popular atheism. What you don't understand is that the theistic philosophy you so clearly disdain is now a serious academic movement that has nothing to do with young Earth creationists and is a direct response to the destruction of the dead-end empiricism you still maintain.

If you're really curious what's wrong with empiricism just think about the last time you empirically observed a justification of empiricism. Empiricism refuted itself. Welcome to the 1930s.

"Theistic philosophy...is now a serious academic movement". You would be funny if you weren't so horrid.

[Varenne Rodin]

Getting back to the thread topic, I remember times in Sunday school when confusing lessons were given. We were told candy canes were the body and blood of Christ, for example. A lot of us wondered why it would be good to eat, or to pretend to eat, bodies and blood. When the adult church session let out and the parents came to retrieve their children, however, we were all dutiful smiles. We relayed what we had learned about God and being good Christians. I don't think any of us enjoyed church. It didn't make sense then more than now. We all just wanted our moms and dads to be proud of us. For some children, I think there was a fear of punishment if anything was questioned. For me, it seemed fake and phony and forced. I wish I had never been subjected to it. It's not that I was traumatized exactly, but it would have been nice to have a relationship with my mother uncorrupted by brainwashing. It would have been nice to have gone out to play for all of those Sundays, or to have learned the violin, flown kites. Something not sick and judgmental.

Maybe some people could grow up imagining new religions for themselves if they had never been exposed, but not me. I never would have.

[G L Wilson]

Getting back to the thread topic, I remember times in Sunday school when confusing lessons were given. We were told candy canes were the body and blood of Christ, for example. A lot of us wondered why it would be good to eat, or to pretend to eat, bodies and blood. When the adult church session let out and the parents came to retrieve their children, however, we were all dutiful smiles. We relayed what we had learned about God and being good Christians. I don't think any of us enjoyed church. It didn't make sense then more than now. We all just wanted our moms and dads to be proud of us. For some children, I think there was a fear of punishment if anything was questioned. For me, it seemed fake and phony and forced. I wish I had never been subjected to it. It's not that I was traumatized exactly, but it would have been nice to have a relationship with my mother uncorrupted by brainwashing. It would have been nice to have gone out to play for all of those Sundays, or to have learned the violin, flown kites. Something not sick and judgmental.

Maybe some people could grow up imagining new religions for themselves if they had never been exposed, but not me. I never would have.

Perhaps you are just not greedy, Varenne, ever thought of that.

[OrphanPip]

"Certain biological inevitabilities" sounds, oh I don't know, pseudo-deterministic and, oh I don't know, like precisely what I was talking about. The problem with people like you is that you have such gaping holes in your intellectual vision that you can't even imagine what you're not seeing, which I will shortly show you.

No, Stunt, it is not deterministic. Obviously, as we are physiological beings, our biology effects how we behave. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't suffering under some form of complete delusion.



You're so funny. I assume you have a web browser and, thus, have access to a search function, which would presumably enable you to understand that the term did not originate with Huxley or in the 20th Century. You say that I'm talking about a "neodarwinian bogeyman," but that's hardly the case when there's a self-professed movement to unify all fields of study in a sort of mechanistic jumble under the banner of neo-Darwinianism.

Really, where is this self-professed movement, please point me towards them. Because if you google neodarwinism, the conventional definition I am familiar with, and have stated above, is the first result.



You are so ridiculous. The only reason I'm not referencing a particular argument that Dawkins makes about indoctrination is because no such argument exists. You are obviously incapable of distinguishing an argument from a flat assertion. Dawkins doesn't come close to stringing together a coherent sequence of necessarily following conclusions from a reliable premise. The only time he even tries, it results in a total disaster, which is what I critiqued.

Now you just want to play at semantics to distract from the fact that you are merely ignoring the fact that the article you posted does not contradict the statement that religion is learned behavior.



Second, your notions of evidentiary obligation regarding metaphysical claims are laughably antique. You don’t even understand that religious beliefs can be properly considered basic, like knowledge of goodness and, thus, require no evidence. This isn’t simply a quaint Baptist idea tossed around at Sunday school, which leads us to….

I disagree, so there we have it. Moreover, it is highly tenuous whether we can conclude that knowledge of goodness exists without evidence. If religious beliefs are so self-evident as to be obvious, why is there so much debate about them even amongst those who profess to be religious. How is religious belief as basic as goodness, if I have no religious belief? What would a universal human belief in religion suggest about whether we should believe in religion, absolutely nothing.



The problem here is that you're stuck in the wrong century. Just so you know Romanticism is more recent than your Enlightenment ideals. Your empiricism was run out of the academy, along with the logical positivists, in the early 20th Century thanks to Godel and his theorems of incompleteness. The problem here is that you simply have no idea what you're talking about--just like most adherents of popular atheism. What you don't understand is that the theistic philosophy you so clearly disdain is now a serious academic movement that has nothing to do with young Earth creationists and is a direct response to the destruction of the dead-end empiricism you still maintain.

No, theistic philosophy is no serious academic movement. Empiricism has not been run out of the academy, as science and engineering schools receive the majority of funding and support these days. Exactly what am I talking about that I have no idea about, that I believe that empricism is practical for solving real problems? That I believe a secularized public society is better for fostering individual liberties? Moreover, I'm not sure you actually understand Godel's ideas either. Godel's work is entirely about complex axiomatic systems in number theory. I simply believe empiricism is better at approximating useful concepts than other systems.



If you're really curious what's wrong with empiricism just think about the last time you empirically observed a justification of empiricism. Empiricism refuted itself. Welcome to the 1930s.

Once again, I'm left with the feeling you do not actually understand Godel. This misunderstanding and misapplication of an aspect of number theory is a common feature of some post-modernist thinkers, and the conclusions you are drawing from it are rather recent and not popular amongst anyone with a modicum of sense. Godel would be insulted and shocked by what you think the incompleteness theory actually demonstrates.

Edit: This wouldn't happen to be the old theistic post-modernist Sebas?

[G L Wilson]

The justification of empiricism is just as likely as the justification of idealism - not very likely at all.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

stuntpickle, this forum welcomes debate and argument, but it can be done in a civil, congenial manner. Is there really a need for the cheap-shots against Pip? He's a well loved (and very intelligent) member of these boards, so unless you want to make yourself into a pariah, I suggest you apologize and continue with a more civil tone. Pip did nothing to provoke you.

[G L Wilson]

stuntpickle, this forum welcomes debate and argument, but it can be done in a civil, congenial manner. Is there really a need for the cheap-shots against Pip? He's a well loved (and very intelligent) member of these boards, so unless you want to make yourself into a pariah, I suggest you apologize and continue with a more civil tone. Pip did nothing to provoke you.

The idealist thinks that he is justified, the empiricist doesn't - that is the fundamental difference between the two entities and it is a vital one.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The empiricist doesn't need to be rude, though.

P.S. - Check your PMs, G L.

[OrphanPip]

If this happens to be the old member Sebas, I certainly have said some very mean things to him in the past, so I might have provoked him.

[G L Wilson]

The empiricist doesn't need to be rude, though.

P.S. - Check your PMs, G L.

I have and thank you here.

[G L Wilson]

If this happens to be the old member Sebas, I certainly have said some very mean things to him in the past, so I might have provoked him.

War is hell.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If this happens to be the old member Sebas, I certainly have said some very mean things to him in the past, so I might have provoked him.
Was Sebus before my time? I registered in 2009, but didn't really become active until some time after that. His name doesn't ring a bell, and a search of said name brings up nothing.

[OrphanPip]

Was Sebus before my time? I registered in 2009, but didn't really become active until some time after that. His name doesn't ring a bell.

Sebas. Melmoth, he had the Oscar Wilde avatar. I had a bit of a cussing match with him last year that resulted in an infraction, then he stopped posting here.

To be honest though, I wouldn't be surprised if stunt is not Sebas.

[G L Wilson]

prickly_pete and lieasleep and the Native American Indian fellow that I called Tinkerbell because he liked verse and was as big as a house have gone off the radar as well. I hope that they pop up some place soon, they were all good people.

[stuntpickle]

No, Stunt, it is not deterministic. Obviously, as we are physiological beings, our biology effects how we behave. This should be obvious to anyone who isn't suffering under some form of complete delusion.

A delusion? What if it's a delusion of completely free will? How can we separate that from your delusion of naturalism? If my completely convincing notions of an independent self aren't reliable, how can you be sure your naturalistic balderdash is?

If you can't understand how stating that biology "effects how we behave" is explicitly deterministic then you are beyond help. You're clearly reiterating Skinner's ratamorphic man.

But it doesn't matter because if my notions of free will, largely shared by most of humanity, are somehow hindered or conjured by biological forces then so is your naturalism. You lose no matter what. If you weren't some two-bit naturalist who stopped reading at Hume, you would understand that.




Really, where is this self-professed movement, please point me towards them. Because if you google neodarwinism, the conventional definition I am familiar with, and have stated above, is the first result.

Are you kidding me? In the age of the internet you're telling me you need my help to read about a fairly obvious attempt to unite various unrelated disciplines under the hierarchical banner of neo-Darwinism? I guess you need direction just as you needed me to direct you to the actual origin of "neo-Darwinism," which I presume you found since you've since shut up about it. Get real, start reading about evolutionary literary criticism. If you're really suggesting I need to hold your hand through a google search, you need more help than I can provide.


Now you just want to play at semantics to distract from the fact that you are merely ignoring the fact that the article you posted does not contradict the statement that religion is learned behavior.

You said the article wrongly attributed the idea of indoctrination to Richard Dawkins--you know, that guy whose atheist writings you said you never read, the same guy who chastised an Anglican bishop for using the term "Christian children" (in reference to children attending a religious school) on the grounds that it was a slur. Was that the Dawkins you were referring to?





I disagree, so there we have it. Moreover, it is highly tenuous whether we can conclude that knowledge of goodness exists without evidence. If religious beliefs are so self-evident as to be obvious, why is there so much debate about them even amongst those who profess to be religious. How is religious belief as basic as goodness, if I have no religious belief? What would a universal human belief in religion suggest about whether we should believe in religion, absolutely nothing.

First off, you need to read up on the naturalistic fallacy in reference to your silly question about goodness. Stop putting words in my mouth; 'basic' and 'obvious' are hardly the same thing.




No, theistic philosophy is no serious academic movement. Empiricism has not been run out of the academy, as science and engineering schools receive the majority of funding and support these days. Exactly what am I talking about that I have no idea about, that I believe that empricism is practical for solving real problems? That I believe a secularized public society is better for fostering individual liberties? Moreover, I'm not sure you actually understand Godel's ideas either. Godel's work is entirely about complex axiomatic systems in number theory. I simply believe empiricism is better at approximating useful concepts than other systems.

What most aggravates me about overconfident ignoramuses is when they simply make factual errors without ever checking. You know that Plantinga guy I mentioned who got a Guggenheim, taught at Yale and Notre Dame? Seriously, you are completely unaware of the resurgence of Christian thought at Oxford and various Universities in the US? That's hilarious. And you're trying to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Look, I'll throw you a bone from that bastion of backwoods apologetics The Harvard Ichthus (and yeah, the same Harvard you're thinking).

http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/08/renaissance-in-christian-philosophy/

Maybe next time you'll actually make the effort to do a google search. But who am I to question someone who has read Hume and Descartes? Rofl!

I can't explain how idiotic I find your claim that I don't understand Godel when you don't seem at all capable of extrapolating how notions such as truth doesn't necessarily entail provability and the more exact a system is the more incomplete it is, might be troublesome for a group of goons who thought empirical evidence was the ultimate arbiter of truth. Get real.



Once again, I'm left with the feeling you do not actually understand Godel. This misunderstanding and misapplication of an aspect of number theory is a common feature of some post-modernist thinkers, and the conclusions you are drawing from it are rather recent and not popular amongst anyone with a modicum of sense. Godel would be insulted and shocked by what you think the incompleteness theory actually demonstrates.

Edit: This wouldn't happen to be the old theistic post-modernist Sebas?

You do realize that it is largely recognized that Godel became a believer before he died, right?

Post-modern? Are you serious? We're past post-modernism, bud.

I'm stuntpickle and no one else. Don't involve me in your past. I can assure you that you won't come out of this scrap intact because, unlike you, I didn't stop reading after Hume and Kierkegaard. You need to read up on the past hundred years, at least, before you can pretend to condescend to me on the subject.

[OrphanPip]

A delusion? What if it's a delusion of completely free will? How can we separate that from your delusion of naturalism? If my completely convincing notions of an independent self aren't reliable, how can you be sure your naturalistic balderdash is?

What delusion of naturalism, I haven't claimed anything about naturalism, merely that empiricism is useful, that's pragmatism.



If you can't understand how stating that biology "effects how we behave" is explicitly deterministic then you are beyond help. You're clearly reiterating Skinner's ratamorphic man.

No, it not deterministic, it is merely stating what is undeniably true. At the most basic, we need the biological basis of a brain to have any sort of behavior, so obvious our behavior is contingent on some biological facts. Would you dispute this, rather than engaging in more obfuscating.



Are you kidding me? In the age of the internet you're telling me you need my help to read about a fairly obvious attempt to unite various unrelated disciplines under the hierarchical banner of neo-Darwinism? I guess you need direction just as you needed me to direct you to the actual origin of "neo-Darwinism," which I presume you found since you've since shut up about it. Get real, start reading about evolutionary literary criticism. If you're really suggesting I need to hold your hand through a google search, you need more help than I can provide.

Oh please, stunt, instead of acting like a petulant child, why don't you actually defend your claim. Neodarwinism is exactly what I defined it as. Evolutionary literary criticism has absolutely nothing to do with neodarwinism. What have I shut up about? I'm starting to think you have serious reading comprehension difficulties as well. You claim there are several proponents of what you deem is neodarwinism, who define themselves as such, so why don't you just identify one. Why should the burden be on me to check your claims, when it would be much simpler for you to just defend your claim. I don't want to do a google search, so please provide names.



You said the article wrongly attributed the idea of indoctrination to Richard Dawkins--you know, that guy whose atheist writings you said you never read, the same guy who chastised an Anglican bishop for using the term "Christian children" (in reference to children attending a religious school) on the grounds that it was a slur. Was that the Dawkins you were referring to?

No, I didn't. I said that the article's claim that biological predispositions towards mystical and irrational thinking contradicts the statement that religious behavior is learned is false. I said nothing about Dawkins' anti-religious activity.



First off, you need to read up on the naturalistic fallacy in reference to your silly question about goodness. Stop putting words in my mouth; 'basic' and 'obvious' are hardly the same thing.

No, stunt, you see that was the point, it is an absurd concept. So why should we accept that religion should be accepted as a basic concept like goodness, when neither religion nor goodness are necessarily basic concepts. Moreover, from there I pointed out that it does not follow that either being a basic concept, if we accepted them as such, that this would be relevant to the value of these concepts.



What most aggravates me about overconfident ignoramuses is when they simply make factual errors without ever checking. You know that Plantinga guy I mentioned who got a Guggenheim, taught at Yale and Notre Dame? Seriously, you are completely unaware of the resurgence of Christian thought at Oxford and various Universities in the US? That's hilarious. And you're trying to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Look, I'll throw you a bone from that bastion of backwoods apologetics The Harvard Ichthus (and yeah, the same Harvard you're thinking).


http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/08/renaissance-in-christian-philosophy/

It's a dead link.

Also, a handful of professors is not evidence of it being resurgent. Likewise, you ignored the fact that while philosophy departments are increasingly marginalized, it is the departments that embrace empiricism that are thriving.



Maybe next time you'll actually make the effort to do a google search. But who am I to question someone who has read Hume and Descartes? Rofl!

And maybe one day you'll pull your head out of your *** and stop acting like a child. I don't expect it though.



I can't explain how idiotic I find your claim that I don't understand Godel when you don't seem at all capable of extrapolating how notions such as truth doesn't necessarily entail provability and the more exact a system is the more incomplete it is, might be troublesome for a group of goons who thought empirical evidence was the ultimate arbiter of truth. Get real.

I never said empirical evidence was the ultimate arbiter of truth. Merely that empiricism was the best means of coming to conclusions, because it operates off of limited assumptions and is self-refining. Moreover, modern scientific empiricism does not depend on statements of first order logic. Science is a system of falsification and recognizes the impossibility of proving positive statements.



You do realize that it is largely recognized that Godel became a believer before he died, right?

So, what does that matter. That doesn't mean he believed in silly extrapolations of number theory.



Post-modern? Are you serious? We're past post-modernism, bud.

Oh ya, cause post-post-modern is such a buzz word these days.



I'm stuntpickle and no one else. Don't involve me in your past. I can assure you that you won't come out of this scrap intact because, unlike you, I didn't stop reading after Hume and Kierkegaard. You need to read up on the past hundred years, at least, before you can pretend to condescend to me on the subject.

Oh, go **** yourself, babe.

[G L Wilson]

A delusion? What if it's a delusion of completely free will? How can we separate that from your delusion of naturalism? If my completely convincing notions of an independent self aren't reliable, how can you be sure your naturalistic balderdash is?

If you can't understand how stating that biology "effects how we behave" is explicitly deterministic then you are beyond help. You're clearly reiterating Skinner's ratamorphic man.

But it doesn't matter because if my notions of free will, largely shared by most of humanity, are somehow hindered or conjured by biological forces then so is your naturalism. You lose no matter what. If you weren't some two-bit naturalist who stopped reading at Hume, you would understand that.





Are you kidding me? In the age of the internet you're telling me you need my help to read about a fairly obvious attempt to unite various unrelated disciplines under the hierarchical banner of neo-Darwinism? I guess you need direction just as you needed me to direct you to the actual origin of "neo-Darwinism," which I presume you found since you've since shut up about it. Get real, start reading about evolutionary literary criticism. If you're really suggesting I need to hold your hand through a google search, you need more help than I can provide.



You said the article wrongly attributed the idea of indoctrination to Richard Dawkins--you know, that guy whose atheist writings you said you never read, the same guy who chastised an Anglican bishop for using the term "Christian children" (in reference to children attending a religious school) on the grounds that it was a slur. Was that the Dawkins you were referring to?






First off, you need to read up on the naturalistic fallacy in reference to your silly question about goodness. Stop putting words in my mouth; 'basic' and 'obvious' are hardly the same thing.





What most aggravates me about overconfident ignoramuses is when they simply make factual errors without ever checking. You know that Plantinga guy I mentioned who got a Guggenheim, taught at Yale and Notre Dame? Seriously, you are completely unaware of the resurgence of Christian thought at Oxford and various Universities in the US? That's hilarious. And you're trying to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Look, I'll throw you a bone from that bastion of backwoods apologetics The Harvard Ichthus (and yeah, the same Harvard you're thinking).

http://www.harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2009/08/renaissance-in-christian-philosophy/

Maybe next time you'll actually make the effort to do a google search. But who am I to question someone who has read Hume and Descartes? Rofl!

I can't explain how idiotic I find your claim that I don't understand Godel when you don't seem at all capable of extrapolating how notions such as truth doesn't necessarily entail provability and the more exact a system is the more incomplete it is, might be troublesome for a group of goons who thought empirical evidence was the ultimate arbiter of truth. Get real.




You do realize that it is largely recognized that Godel became a believer before he died, right?

Post-modern? Are you serious? We're past post-modernism, bud.

I'm stuntpickle and no one else. Don't involve me in your past. I can assure you that you won't come out of this scrap intact because, unlike you, I didn't stop reading after Hume and Kierkegaard. You need to read up on the past hundred years, at least, before you can pretend to condescend to me on the subject.

Oh well, someone's pissed off. The problem is that there is probably a brilliant mind underneath all that junk.

[G L Wilson]

What delusion of naturalism, I haven't claimed anything about naturalism, merely that empiricism is useful, that's pragmatism.



No, it not deterministic, it is merely stating what is undeniably true. At the most basic, we need the biological basis of a brain to have any sort of behavior, so obvious our behavior is contingent on some biological facts. Would you dispute this, rather than engaging in more obfuscating.



Oh please, stunt, instead of acting like a petulant child, why don't you actually defend your claim. Neodarwinism is exactly what I defined it as. Evolutionary literary criticism has absolutely nothing to do with neodarwinism. What have I shut up about? I'm starting to think you have serious reading comprehension difficulties as well. You claim there are several proponents of what you deem is neodarwinism, who define themselves as such, so why don't you just identify one. Why should the burden be on me to check your claims, when it would be much simpler for you to just defend your claim. I don't want to do a google search, so please provide names.



No, I didn't. I said that the article's claim that biological predispositions towards mystical and irrational thinking contradicts the statement that religious behavior is learned is false. I said nothing about Dawkins' anti-religious activity.



No, stunt, you see that was the point, it is an absurd concept. So why should we accept that religion should be accepted as a basic concept like goodness, when neither religion nor goodness are necessarily basic concepts. Moreover, from there I pointed out that it does not follow that either being a basic concept, if we accepted them as such, that this would be relevant to the value of these concepts.



It's a dead link.

Also, a handful of professors is not evidence of it being resurgent. Likewise, you ignored the fact that while philosophy departments are increasingly marginalized, it is the departments that embrace empiricism that are thriving.



And maybe one day you'll pull your head out of your *** and stop acting like a child. I don't expect it though.



I never said empirical evidence was the ultimate arbiter of truth. Merely that empiricism was the best means of coming to conclusions, because it operates off of limited assumptions and is self-refining. Moreover, modern scientific empiricism does not depend on statements of first order logic. Science is a system of falsification and recognizes the impossibility of proving positive statements.



So, what does that matter. That doesn't mean he believed in silly extrapolations of number theory.



Oh ya, cause post-post-modern is such a buzz word these days.



Oh, go **** yourself, babe.

Now, OrphanPip, you have to give more detail. How is he going to **** himself when he has already got his head up his arse?

[OrphanPip]

Now, OrphanPip, you have to give more detail. How is he going to **** himself when he has already got his head up his arse?

With careful preparation you'd be surprised what can fit in there.

[G L Wilson]

With careful preparation you'd be surprised what can fit in there.

He has certainly swallowed a laxative because **** fairly spews from his mouth.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I found the amount of common ground I am sharing with G L Wilson refreshing. :lol:

[Varenne Rodin]

You know what this debate needs? Lightsabers.

[G L Wilson]

You know what this debate needs? Lightsabers.

And beer.

[Varenne Rodin]

And beer.

I don't drink beer, but I'm all for watching drunk people.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Just to make sure this isn't shut down, I'll make a post pertaining directly to the OP.

I find it an interesting question. I can't see a huge possibility that a person who isn't exposed to anyone with a belief in God or any source of information on God could come to the conclusion that there is one. But, what information could he come to, then? I'm sort of envisioning a solitary being living in the wilderness or something. The mind is an odd thing, though. I'm sure this person, being ignorant of science and what-not, would form supernatural beliefs in the attempt to rationalize things like life, the sun, the moon, and the stars, but the chances of that person codifying all this into a belief in one supreme, all controlling being seems unlikely. Even tribes that have existed for millennia haven't come to this conclusion.

So, to conclude my thoughts: Do I think a single person can come to believe in God, as many of use perceive him (the omnipotent, ever-present being)? No. Will the child form pseudo-religious beliefs of his own? I would think almost definitely.

[BienvenuJDC]

But it is still amazing how many call out to God (both believers and non-believers) when on their death bed. Although one cannot know the specifics of God, the majority of the world (of cultures and people) believes in a god of some form. I'd say 'yes, they can'.

[Varenne Rodin]

Just to make sure this isn't shut down, I'll make a post pertaining directly to the OP.

I find it an interesting question. I can't see a huge possibility that a person who isn't exposed to anyone with a belief in God or any source of information on God could come to the conclusion that there is one. But, what information could he come to, then? I'm sort of envisioning a solitary being living in the wilderness or something. The mind is an odd thing, though. I'm sure this person, being ignorant of science and what-not, would form supernatural beliefs in the attempt to rationalize things like life, the sun, the moon, and the stars, but the chances of that person codifying all this into a belief in one supreme, all controlling being seems unlikely. Even tribes that have existed for millennia haven't come to this conclusion.

So, to conclude my thoughts: Do I think a single person can come to believe in God, as many of use perceive him (the omnipotent, ever-present being)? No. Will the child form pseudo-religious beliefs of his own? I would think almost definitely.

That's pretty good and impartial. I like it. I think the world would be very interesting if all religions were reset to nothing. A week or two later, someone would start cashing in on ignorance and fear, but for the week or two...fun!

[BienvenuJDC]

That's pretty good and impartial. I like it. I think the world would be very interesting if all religions were reset to nothing. A week or two later, someone would start cashing in on ignorance and fear, but for the week or two...fun!

I wish that the majority of the televangelists would be taken off the air. oh....and the lawyers, well...that has nothing to do with this thread...BUT

Do you know what you call 200,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

[G L Wilson]

But it is still amazing how many call out to God (both believers and non-believers) when on their death bed. Although one cannot know the specifics of God, the majority of the world (of cultures and people) believes in a god of some form. I'd say 'yes, they can'.

On the Western Front, it is said that most of the dying called out for their mother.

[BienvenuJDC]

On the Western Front, it is said that most of the dying called out for their mother.

Really? What's the Western Front? And where does it say this? Just curious...

[G L Wilson]

I wish that the majority of the televangelists would be taken off the air. oh....and the lawyers, well...that has nothing to do with this thread...BUT

Do you know what you call 200,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

I don't know, what do you call 200,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

[G L Wilson]

Really? What's the Western Front? And where does it say this? Just curious...

The Western Front! World War I. You know.

[BienvenuJDC]

The Western Front! World War I. You know.

Ok....yeah, I know what you mean now.
I wonder if it was because they were younger (even boys) and their mother was still back home. My mother has past on, so I don't think that is one that I'd call to. Interesting though.

[MystyrMystyry]

A good start?

[BienvenuJDC]

A good start?

Ding Ding Ding....we got a winner...

[G L Wilson]

An oldie but a goodie.

[G L Wilson]

Isn't it good to see that apes can use Google as well?

[G L Wilson]

I am arguing that science has no place in metaphysics or religion.

The separation of Church and State cuts both ways, Mister Magoo.

[MarkBastable]

Oh, goody. Another nice member has joined the forums!

Six months, tops.

[G L Wilson]

Six months, tops.

He is extremely aggressive for sure but nothing that we can't handle if left alone.

[Scheherazade]

~

Despite Mutatis' valiant efforts to save the thread,

with much regret, this thread is now closed.

Please start another one on the same topic
if you would like to carry on with the discussion with more mature attitude.

~