"Non-rational", as opposed to irrational, has been known at least since the Greeks.

We are constantly faced with quandaries. Some are brutal, like one cancer treatment has a 60% chance of success, but will be agonizing while another has a 40% chance of success but won't leave you worse off than you are. And costs a lot less. Or which mortgage terms are best?

Most aren't that stark, but every day we face decisions where we can't prove we have all the facts or don't have the means to "rationally" decide even if we did.

Logic and rationality are preached by too many who haven't even seen a square of opposition, much less analyzed a syllogism. A sorites paradox? Whuzzat?

Getting back to religion, it is easy to mock a magical being in the sky, but it is not so easy to "logically" mock the concept of an intelligence of some sort pretty much running things.

assumes that the human brain can separate emotion from logic.

So making a claim that one has examined the matter and came to a purely logical decision that there are no deities is also making a claim that one can separate logical and emotional processes. Again, I understand the Spock worship, but there is no proof that such separation can be done. It is a fantasy, an illogical and non-evidence based belief.

As opposed, of course, to the illogical, non-evidence based beliefs of theists.

Here you go again.

For starters, none of us are born knowing about a god. None. Nobody is. We are TAUGHT about them, by family, society, pop culture, you name it.

Every time you encounter one of those inflection points where you are informed of a human claim of XYZ god, you can accept, reject, or suspend the claim for later analysis.

Consistently rejecting the claim isn't 'belief'. It's a lack of belief. It doesn't require evidence. It requires only a rejection of your claimed evidence as flawed, insufficient, etc.

The title was tremendous. After that, not so much. Interestingly enough, you totally ignored the actual point.

Or feel free to ignore it if you feel it cannot be refuted. I understand either way. I also have unprovable beliefs.

If you can't deal with that, fine. But that's on you, not me.

Many apparently identify with the fictional character of Mr. Spock. As long as they understand that it is a fictional character, with no basis in reality.

Spock's entire 'deal' is his struggle with balancing his half-human heritage and emotions, as part of a species that normally goes to great lengths to intentionally divorce itself from emotion.

EVEN AS A FUCKING FANTANSY CONCEPT the Vulcans are born emotional. Powerfully so. They intentionally subdivide their cortex/functions and discard/firewall off emotions. It is, in their canon storyline, a defense and survival mechanism.

Spock never achieved Kolinahr. He has (canon) human emotions, and expresses them, albeit in a highly controlled fashion.


Please do not use examples you do not understand.

From your response:

He is a vehicle for exploring the idea that not only is fully divorcing emotion even possible; is it even desirable.

Why are you even bringing him up like this? Anyone familiar with the character (not you apparently) knows this.



That said, your last line is incorrect. One can acknowledge, list, and examine emotional influences on a decision. You can map it all out, and weigh the factors, logic and emotion. I see what you're angling to do. You're hoping to dismiss any/all future claims of logical analysis, and that's just not going to fly. No matter how desperately you want religion viewed as respectable as reason.

That is the ultimate in fantasy, but what would be the result?

As to your last paragraph, religion relies on faith. Not proof, but faith.

I don't know any people trying to eliminate emotion. Someone else is going to have to speak up on that.

Because he's a GREAT straw man. gil loves those. Always has, always will.

Not the conflicted "how do I deal with these emotions I feel as half human" Spock, but the only logic Spock that never existed.

I had to google "straw man Spock" and was not disappointed.

You clearly don't understand it. Your Spock point is a complete misunderstanding of his character. As explained by AC, but just thought you needed to hear it from another that you got it wrong. You did. Stop.

Must have realized his error. Probably a simple one-line google search.

You refuse to talk with anyone who has a differing opinion. So there's another answer to your question.

If so, consider your point refuted.

What intelligence is running what things and how exactly does that work?

Or perhaps just concede that it is ludicrous.

However, I do think that certain arguments can be made based purely on logic and knowledge - specifically, without emotion. For instance, from Wolfram MathWorld Euclid's postulates:

But when speaking about non-physical concepts, a different situation applies.

I can drop a hammer and show gravitational attraction. I can put water into a freezer and expect it to freeze.

But religion and science are 2 different fields.

They are ideals.

There is no such thing as a perfect circle in the real world.

with the methodology behind identifying religious "truth."

You correctly gave examples of how science verifies truths - experimentation and observation.

What does religion use? HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'VE FOUND A RELIGIOUS TRUTH?

Let me guess: you'll refuse to answer again. Because you can't.

And the NOMA concept. How did you arrive at the concept of atheism? Did you prove it mathematically? Or did you conclude, based on your own thoughts, that atheism was the position for you?

Thanks.

But I see you still refuse to answer.

I said nothing of your intelligence. And an understanding of NOMA, and your remembering my many posts about the unprovability of faith will provide you with the answer.

Tell me why religion doesn't have a way to validate truth, and more importantly, why religious truth doesn't matter because NOMA.

If you believe in love, can you prove that love exists?

I am posing these questions rhetorically.

If you believe that atheism is the correct choice for you, can you prove that it is correct? The only answer is, no.

It is the same for me. Part of the issue, in my view, is the use of the word truth.

There is truth in the legal sense, of testifying accurately about certain things.

There is truth as in "we hold these truths to be self evident", where the truths are actual unprovable ideas.

And there is truth used as a synonym for certain types of belief. I believe in the Creator. Some call that belief, or their own belief, truth. But my belief is not provable, as I have stated repeatedly, so proof and truth do not enter the equation.

It's very similar to your god in that way, so yeah, I agree with that comparison.

But you believe your god exists apart from you. There is zero evidence that this is so.

That's why I am an atheist. Theists have provided inadequate evidence to support their claims. Dozens of people have explained this to you, but your desire to frame atheism as a "belief" based on "faith" that gods DON'T exist is too strong.

Perhaps if you actually listened to atheists...

And I do listen, but we differ in what constitutes a belief.

and decided that not accepting a theist's claims is a belief in and of itself.

This is simply not true.

To demonstrate how it's not true, ask yourself if you believe zyrlox doesn't exist. You don't get to ask me any questions about zyrlox - what it is, what it does, anything. Because you can't. You just have to have faith. Just like you have faith zyrlox doesn't exist, and therefore you have a belief it doesn't.

When you understand why you don't accept your non-belief in zyrlox is a belief, then you'll understand why my non-belief in your god isn't a belief either.

feelings of love. All kinds of identifiable patterns in the limbic structures of the brain.

So yeah, actually, we can prove that.

"we hold these truths to be self evident"

'Truths' sounds better than 'axioms'. The people who originally claimed that still codified in law the ability to own another human being as property.

This shows that much of what is held as truth varies from one society to another.

So maybe find a different argument?

Start putting up the links you have been asked for and maybe you will have standing for that request.

Congratulations on your new position.

I'm sure I'm not alone in this viewpoint.

You can do what you want, but if you ever ask me for links, I will have zero shits to give.

Plus, is the google broken for you?

Next speaker, please.

I'd have thought you learned this in chemistry class, but I guess they were as lacking as the lit-crit classes were.

Atheism is a LACK OF FAITH.

Faith is not something you are born with. It is an elective. A choice. How much choice you really have might be a function of the society you are embedded in, or the family that raised you, but it's still a learned idea.

Stop pretending that a lack of faith is an elective choice. It's the default.

While I understand your desire to present atheism as the default position, actual human history shows otherwise.

If it were true, we would all have the same religion. We are born a blank slate. It isn't too difficult to comprehend why we adopt the religion of our parents.

Atheism is the null hypothesis. That might be hard for you to swallow, but it's true.

And it must be made.

If raised without religion or knowledge of religion, which religion do you think a child would gravitate toward?

This raising a child in this manner?

That's what my parents (a protestant and a catholic) did.

Without a compelling reason to choose a faith, I remained an atheist.

"If raised without religion or knowledge of religion, which religion do you think a child would gravitate toward?"

Were you raised with no knowledge about religion?

You made your choice, but most appear to make a different choice.

made at all in the matter.

My parents remained silent on the matter. Neither encouraging nor discouraging. A pattern repeated with my own child, with so far, identical results.


I diverge from the hypothesis in one way only; I was aware of society and its religious preferences. I was also aware of religious history and mythology, by way of the library. I was also aware of Christian bigotry toward atheists in plain daylight. I found none of these compelling reasons to elect a faith.

the bible. One of my relatives sent me a 'dianetics' book as a graduation gift. Things like that.

Mostly direct conversations stemming from some casual probing question like 'what church do you go to'.

We are frequently visited by Jehovah's Witnesses. My wife will talk with them, when she wishes to make the time, and they are always polite.

I worked for the USPS for 37 years and never talked about Christianity or other religions except in private conversation with people whom I know as friends.

I belong to a few groups, one with nearly an even mix of theists and atheists. The commonality is progressive politics and religion is never discussed.

Some people obviously feel the need to speak to others.

What would happen? According to your argument, they would spontaneously believe in god. Which god would they believe in with no external help?

Hint: they wouldn't believe in a god. Because that is a learned behavior. If it wasn't, people would still believe in Thor.

Never my argument.

Would you like more straw?

You are saying that children aren't born atheists. You should be able to answer those questions, then. If we aren't born atheists:

We are not reptiles, born with all we need to know to survive. We need years of socialization.

We are not born with language, but we have the capacity for language. And we are taught what languages we know.

Humans are born with reflexes, and abilities, but most of what we know is taught to us.

I know you want to make atheism some grand major decision but it isn't. It's just lacking belief in any gods. Which describes a newborn completely.

Here is what you said:

Ask a newborn about the existence or non-existence of deities.

Humans are born with no opinions or views on anything. And THAT is the default position. And I was speaking of adults, not babies when I made my statement.

Thank you for agreeing with me. They are born atheists because they are born with no belief in a god. QED

But for 300,000 years, totally by coincidence, humans have been predominantly theists. Indeed, some scientists feel that theism is the default position.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218258944

The religion part is learned. Or developed in a need to answer questions we can't.

You have agreed with me twice now that atheism is the default position when it comes to religion. It is how we are all born. Not sure what you are arguing about anymore. Glad to see you've come around.

So your attempt to frame atheism as a default is faulty. Atheism, like theism, is a choice that is made. A choice that requires the intellectual capacity to make it, and the capability to articulate it.

While your attempt is faulty, I liked the attempt.

Before babies have language they show distinct likes and dislikes about food. They smile at some things and frown/laugh at others. Those are clearly opinions. They can do that pretty quickly after birth.

So, try again.

My attempt is nowhere near faulty. Babies are born atheists. I know that differs from your preferred narrative that atheism is some conscious choice to deny the existence of your creator, but that isn't the case. We all come into this world with no belief in a god, i.e. atheists. I know it scares you to think that you were once an atheist, but it's OK. Really.

Congratulations, but having 3 children, that is not exactly a worthy of a Nobel Prize.

That they don't like and dislike things? Because that sounds like the argument you are making. And to make it seem even more silly, you are saying the reason they don't have opinions is because they don't have language. Which is just silly. Sure, they can't tell us the opinion in words, but they still have opinions.

And opinions.

Can you distinguish between a preference for one taste over another and an intellectual choice of 2 abstract concepts?

Now, having done so, follow this question and make the obvious conclusion as to the difference between concrete and abstract concepts.

So now we are in agreement that animals and babies have opinions and preferences. Great.

We are back to agreeing that babies are born atheist and atheism, then, is the default position. Good to know.

but not a substitute for actual analysis. Babies have no thoughts on theism versus atheism. Unless you have found a study that presents another view.

You're half right.

They have no thoughts about theism.

Atheism is the state of being without theism. "A-theism"

you only referred to 1/2 of my statement.

I thought that was clear.

Or to call it the correct and logical position. And in this post about the mythical homo logicae, that is fitting even if it is pure supposition driven by a need to believe.

Don't you get it?

Because that them an atheist by definition.

Or is this an article of faith for you?

But if you are now changing your mind on whether children are born believing in god, I return back to my original questions:
What god do they believe in?
Why do children exclusively believe in the god of their parents and not just some other god?
Why aren't people born believing in Thor anymore?

You really need to either work on your argumentation game or just stop. Because this is kind of sad, actually.

Almost an exact echo in phrasing of another who posts here under a completely different name.

Coincidence? Perhaps.

But it's bullshit for you to keep just being so passive-aggressive cutesy about it. If you can't handle the argument and keep up with it without contradicting yourself like you did here, then just bow out and stop posting on that argument. You don't need to be an ass about it and accuse people of being socks, or bots, or whatever the fuck you are insinuating.

About the amazing commonality of phrasing and tactics. I can understand the tactics because it is quite evident how that is working, but the similar phrasing has an almost rehearsed quality to it.

Nice.

OMGWTF how are you not getting this.

Puberty? Like, at age 12 you get hair in funny places and start talking to invisible sky wizards?

Was it gradual?

Did it depend on your capacity for language?

Did it depend on your capacity for abstract thought?

to read.

Early reading material included norse, greek, and roman mythology, along with encountering children's books aimed at explaining christian mythology.

One sub-thread here.

So you explored the matter and arrived at a conclusion that satisfies you. Who could ask for more?

Atheism is simply a lack of faith.

I think we've all agreed that babies have no faith in god(s).
Therefore they are atheists.


You seem to object to actually stating that. If I might suggest a reason, it is because you invest baggage into atheism that doesn't exist. As if it were a positive, held position. It isn't. It's a lack of position. No faith. A state that is subject to changing at any time.

Or theists. They lack the capacity to have an opinion on the matter.

You arrived at your opinion after considering the matter.

Atheism is a philosophical observation, in my view. After consideration, as you said, you decided it was appropriate.
I decided on theism. Another philosophical observation. Neither observation is currently provable.

It's Theist with an A- prefix meaning 'without'.

Without opinion
without faith

The only thing stopping you is the baggage you invest in the term for what you perceive to be gnostic atheists. (Few or no people fit this)

It's the baseline, null position. Theism and Atheism are not trend lines reaching in different directions from a baseline of '?'.

'?' and atheism are the same dimensional plane. It's a lack of an opinion. A lack of faith.

Faith is an overt act, an investment. A thing you positively think/claim. Effort.

Thus my response.

Lots of people become theists. Not just believers of any random stripe, but predominately that of the parental unit, or the society. Not a lot of Norse Pagans growing up in Abu Dhabi.

We've already talked about this. You are not BORN with faith. You are taught, or develop it over time. Again, for reasons I would be simply broken-recording about.

It is not a positive claim. Please do get that through your skull at some point.

That doesn't mean they have a faith at birth. They don't. They have to become aware of one, choose it, or invent one.

You keep loading atheism as something more than it is. An agnostic atheist is simply a lack of faith. I don't know any gnostic atheists.