it is better to call newborns agnostic than atheist

Author: linate

Posts

Total: 46
#31
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
Ignoramus is best answer in this thread.  Such a cute little ignoramus.
Lets have more of them?
Of course, if it is the adult who is still being an ignoramus, that, we want to place them in a hospital, or at least remind them of the ignor-anus who got infected from lack of proper hygiene.

Clean the body/soul and the mind will follow.  Or was it the other way around.

353,000 ignoramus's born everyday. Should we be concerned? Only if they contiune to ignore and refute global warming and host of other problems confronting society. Ex too many ignoramus joining society as correlated to operating systems that sustain us may lead to our demise.

Oh heck, whats another billionn or two humans gone hurt. It is so much fun making those cute little ignoramus'es.













#32
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Mhykiel
While I would agree that religiosity is part of human nature, it does not follow that newborns have religious beliefs. Lots of things that are part of human nature do not manifest until one gets older. The ability to walk, for instance, or speak. A desire for self-actualization. Sexual desire.

The most you can conclude from the fact that children as young as two show glimmers of religiosity is that religiosity can start to manifest as early as two. But a two-year-old is a far cry developmentally from a newborn. 

#33
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Newborns have no beliefs...I already stated that fact, however they have intuition. What...EXACTLY is your point other than to argue anything I ever say for the fun of it, even when you have nothing to offer? 
The point is usually the same, showing how wrong you are.

If you had actually read the article you put up, you'd understand it's a pop-sci article that leads back to another article. In that article, they talk about "intuitive physics" (Reflex Actions) that babies who are 5 months old appear to show and they go on to claim they BELIEVE it might have something to do with being born with those "Reflex Actions".

So no, babies do not have intuition based on the definition you provided, that is completely false and just shows how little you do to understand the world around you.

#34
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mhykiel
Secondly this is off tangent but whether newborns have religious thought or not is impertinent to how an individual or society should approach religious matters. After all children left to their own devices misbehave, are cruel creatures, that poop and pee on themselves.
Does religious belief offer a solution for children who poop and pee on themselves?

#35
Mhykiel
Mhykiel's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
0
2
Mhykiel's avatar
Mhykiel
0
0
2
-->
@Stronn
Valid points and could see rewording things in that manner. I tried to find some brain scans of newborn children to religious experience in adults, yet no luck so far as it's tough to research on my phone at the moment.

And even then that would not be sufficient evidence due to the riddled nature of neural plasticity and devevelopment.

However I think it safe to assume no one really knows the spiritual life or beliefs of newborn babies. And still find fault in an assertion either way. 

But I'll continue to use the referencecI made as at least as you said the manifestation of such thought at least that early and potentially earlier if I could find the brains scans I remember seeing once.

#36
Mhykiel
Mhykiel's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
0
2
Mhykiel's avatar
Mhykiel
0
0
2
-->
@Goldtop
Religiosity is a very prevalent part of human cultures through out history. And good arguments can be made about systems of power based in religious practices. But the prevalence, I would argue does suggest an evolutionary benefit derived from such thought.
I might even argue that many intelligent people are religious and that the pondering, meditation upon theological concepts is like a work out for the brain creating schemas adaptable to the application of abstract constructs.

Which is quite useful when problem solving.

#37
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mhykiel
Religiosity is a very prevalent part of human cultures through out history.

I might even argue that many intelligent people are religious and that the pondering, meditation upon theological concepts is like a work out for the brain creating schemas adaptable to the application of abstract constructs.

That's okay, the damage it's done is reversible, although the losses have been great. Unfortunately, even still today it destroys minds wherever it goes. Hopefully, people will wake up someday.

But, there's nothing to ponder, no concepts that engage the brain, there's only mythology and superstitions that were once relevant to the people who wrote them centuries ago, people who knew nothing of the world around them, were incapable of creating schemas and applying abstract concepts. You can't solve real world problems with ancient myths and superstitions.



#38
Mhykiel
Mhykiel's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
0
2
Mhykiel's avatar
Mhykiel
0
0
2
-->
@Goldtop
But, there's nothing to ponder, no concepts that engage the brain, there's only mythology and superstitions

I disagree on this point. (I'll concede the previous ones of harm and reversible that you made.. I think inevitable outcomes of power)

Take for instance the right things of Plato or Saint Augustine. They argued for the Logos (plato) or God's nature (augustine) 

And these responses to questions like ''how many Angel's fit on the head of a pin?'' Or ''What was before God made everything?'' Show some interesting mental gymnastics that later influenced scientific thoughts of time and space.

Like Bacon thought space was nothing and Cartes argued it was something because 'nothing' can't exist.. and yeah I think the argument is sophistry but the thought.. ''what is God like?'' Has given insightful higher dimensional weird and fascinating concepts that have in fact influenced the understanding of the real world.
#39
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mhykiel
And these responses to questions like ''how many Angel's fit on the head of a pin?'' Or ''What was before God made everything?'' Show some interesting mental gymnastics that later influenced scientific thoughts of time and space.

Mental gymnastics for mental midgets. perhaps, or goatherders that lived centuries ago.

And if questions like that lead to scientific thoughts, then mothers milk leads to heroin.


#40
Mhykiel
Mhykiel's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
0
2
Mhykiel's avatar
Mhykiel
0
0
2
-->
@Goldtop
I expected too much from you. Enjoy the forums.
#41
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mhykiel
I expected too much from you.
I'm so terribly sorry that your level of intellectual prowess is peaked with topics and ideas that are more suited to children, that's not my problem. The expectation is on you to raise your level of intellect to that of an adult if you're going to participate in discussions with adults. So far, you're failing miserably at that.
#42
Mhykiel
Mhykiel's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 30
0
0
2
Mhykiel's avatar
Mhykiel
0
0
2
-->
@Goldtop
Thanks, but reading your posts gave nothing to debate over. All I read was vitriol. Ridiculously funny atheist cliche stereotypes like 'go at herder' and mental midget. Funny stuff. You seemed more inspired to pontificate put downs and insults than to discuss the statements made.
You don't need my help to be a troll. So I bid you goodbye and will exit, what at first appeared to be a conversation, but I now realize is your soapbox.



#43
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Mhykiel
discuss the statements made.
Your statements, which you don't seem to realize, are suited towards children, not adults. So, they received all the attention they deserved. If you can't up your intellectual game, then why are you even here? Are you looking for children to talk with?

#44
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
Some are born and ignoramus and others are born......nope, there all  born ignoramuses.

Some may choose to remain and ignoramus even tho the genetics tend toward contrary to that.

So we are left with some choosing to remain immature into adulthood.

Signs of immature adult;

1} ignorance of rational, logical common sense pathways of thought,

2} ignorance of rational, logical common sense conclusions,

3} life is based on and around their ego,

4} ?


#45
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@linate
it all depends on the definition on what to call a newborn. but if we use common definitions in use, babies are better called agnostic. 

atheist means to reject god. agnostic means to be neutral about god. babies don't reject god, but can be said to be neutral. 

I tend to use the Oxford dictionary, since that's what I've grown up with. Babies are atheists in that they don't believe in god(s). They're actually not agnostic since they also don't believe that god(s) is/are unknown/unknowable. But this is a semantic argument, the point made by anyone I know who takes the position that babies are atheists, is that they don't believe in god, that not believing in god is the default position. This is the point regardless of how you define atheism or agnosticism.
#46
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
What do you think of Agnostica if they are a girl, perhaps Athias for a boy?