Why are you your Religion?

[Dyakovo]

Nope. You were born an implicit atheist and then indoctrinated into catholicism.

How was I born an Atheist when Atheism is something you have to think about to believe.¹ No one is born atheist,² we could be born more agnostic but no a atheist.³ Its impossible. Theism and Atheism are Beliefs⁴ and Opinions not something you are born with. And people say Religions backwards.⁵

1: Because that isn't true.
2: Wrong. Everyone is born an atheist.
3: "Agnostic" answers a completely different question than "atheist" or "theist".
4: No, theism is a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief.
5: It is.

[Tekania]

Hence, you dont believe in it. To believe something, you need to know and trust that something.

But Agnostics trust nothing, Atheists trust the fact of their belief there isn't a god, and babies can't trust, because they don't know, because they are AGNOSTIC.

That's why, Dya used the term implicit atheism. Agnosticism itself does not deal with belief, but merely knowledge, as such the babies are agnostic and implicit atheists.

[Tekania]

They LACK belief. Why is this such a difficult concept for you?

but your missing it says Disbelieve, and Lack can also mean no belief at all. For instance I lack money, in reality I ain't got none at all.

Disbelieve OR lacks belief.... which means someone who lacks belief is also an atheist. They are not forgetting "Disbelieves" because it's an or statement.

[YellowApple]

4: No, theism is a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief.

I dunno; a lot of atheists tend to be pretty strongly against the existence of God. Those atheists, by the definition of the word 'believe'¹, 'believe' that there is no God because no evidence supports his existence. Meanwhile, other atheists (like myself) simply recognize that there is no evidence in favor of his existence (or the existence of any deity, for that matter) and leave it at that, without drawing a conclusion of "there is no evidence; therefore, it must be false". Perhaps another term - like 'antitheists' - should be selected for those who believe strongly against the existence of God, as opposed to simply acknowledging the lack of evidence and leave it at that.

¹: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines 'belief' as "the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true". By that definition, a number of atheists take something - the statement "God does not exist" - to be the case or regard it as true.

[Conscentia]

4: No, theism is a belief. Atheism is a lack of belief.

I dunno; a lot of atheists tend to be pretty strongly against the existence of God. Those atheists, by the definition of the word 'believe'¹, 'believe' that there is no God because no evidence supports his existence. Meanwhile, other atheists (like myself) simply recognize that there is no evidence in favor of his existence (or the existence of any deity, for that matter) and leave it at that, without drawing a conclusion of "there is no evidence; therefore, it must be false". Perhaps another term - like 'antitheists' - should be selected for those who believe strongly against the existence of God, as opposed to simply acknowledging the lack of evidence and leave it at that.

¹: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines 'belief' as "the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true". By that definition, a number of atheists take something - the statement "God does not exist" - to be the case or regard it as true.

Atheism refers to a lack of belief in god.
The word can be broken down into two parts:
A - A greek prefix for "not"/"without".
Theism - Belief in god.
Thus Atheism is defined as "Without Theism"/"Without belief in god".

One is an atheist if one is not a theist.
It doesn't why you're not a theist. Only that you are not a theist. The reason is irrelevant.

[YellowApple]

I dunno; a lot of atheists tend to be pretty strongly against the existence of God. Those atheists, by the definition of the word 'believe'¹, 'believe' that there is no God because no evidence supports his existence. Meanwhile, other atheists (like myself) simply recognize that there is no evidence in favor of his existence (or the existence of any deity, for that matter) and leave it at that, without drawing a conclusion of "there is no evidence; therefore, it must be false". Perhaps another term - like 'antitheists' - should be selected for those who believe strongly against the existence of God, as opposed to simply acknowledging the lack of evidence and leave it at that.

¹: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines 'belief' as "the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true". By that definition, a number of atheists take something - the statement "God does not exist" - to be the case or regard it as true.

Atheism refers to a lack of belief in god.
The word can be broken down into two parts:
A - A greek prefix for "not"/"without".
Theism - Belief in god.
Thus Atheism is defined as "Without Theism"/"Without belief in god".

One is an atheist if one is not a theist.
It doesn't why you're not a theist. Only that you are not a theist. The reason is irrelevant.

Still, the term 'atheist' seems to encompass both schools of thought - the recognition of a lack of evidence of God and the belief that God cannot exist. Hence why I propose the alternate term antitheism: direct opposition to the concept of God (from anti - meaning opposed - and theism - belief in one or more gods).

Not to mention that, technically, atheism would also encompass religions that do not include a god or gods (such as Buddhism, though Buddhism is a bit broader in scope than mere religious faith); atheism, as a term, is therefore rather broad.

EDIT: Apparently I'm not the first one to make this differentiation.

[Ovisterra]

Atheism refers to a lack of belief in god.
The word can be broken down into two parts:
A - A greek prefix for "not"/"without".
Theism - Belief in god.
Thus Atheism is defined as "Without Theism"/"Without belief in god".

One is an atheist if one is not a theist.
It doesn't why you're not a theist. Only that you are not a theist. The reason is irrelevant.

Still, the term 'atheist' seems to encompass both schools of thought - the recognition of a lack of evidence of God and the belief that God cannot exist. Hence why I propose the alternate term antitheism: direct opposition to the concept of God (from anti - meaning opposed - and theism - belief in one or more gods).

Yes, I believe a distinction between atheism and antitheism is important.

[Xathranaar]

Atheism refers to a lack of belief in god.
The word can be broken down into two parts:
A - A greek prefix for "not"/"without".
Theism - Belief in god.
Thus Atheism is defined as "Without Theism"/"Without belief in god".

One is an atheist if one is not a theist.
It doesn't why you're not a theist. Only that you are not a theist. The reason is irrelevant.

Still, the term 'atheist' seems to encompass both schools of thought - the recognition of a lack of evidence of God and the belief that God cannot exist. Hence why I propose the alternate term antitheism: direct opposition to the concept of God (from anti - meaning opposed - and theism - belief in one or more gods).

Not to mention that, technically, atheism would also encompass religions that do not include a god or gods (such as Buddhism, though Buddhism is a bit broader in scope than mere religious faith); atheism, as a term, is therefore rather broad.

The problem with antitheism is that it could encompass both the active disbelief in a god or gods, and the belief in, but opposition to, god or gods.

Which is why I propose that all discussion of religion be predicated on the question, "what do you believe and why?"

[Menassa]

Still, the term 'atheist' seems to encompass both schools of thought - the recognition of a lack of evidence of God and the belief that God cannot exist. Hence why I propose the alternate term antitheism: direct opposition to the concept of God (from anti - meaning opposed - and theism - belief in one or more gods).

Not to mention that, technically, atheism would also encompass religions that do not include a god or gods (such as Buddhism, though Buddhism is a bit broader in scope than mere religious faith); atheism, as a term, is therefore rather broad.

The problem with antitheism is that it could encompass both the active disbelief in a god or gods, and the belief in, but opposition to, god or gods.

Which is why I propose that all discussion of religion be predicated on the question, "what do you believe and why?"

Also sometimes anti-theism=anti Christianity.... which is a bit off.

[YellowApple]

Still, the term 'atheist' seems to encompass both schools of thought - the recognition of a lack of evidence of God and the belief that God cannot exist. Hence why I propose the alternate term antitheism: direct opposition to the concept of God (from anti - meaning opposed - and theism - belief in one or more gods).

Not to mention that, technically, atheism would also encompass religions that do not include a god or gods (such as Buddhism, though Buddhism is a bit broader in scope than mere religious faith); atheism, as a term, is therefore rather broad.

The problem with antitheism is that it could encompass both the active disbelief in a god or gods, and the belief in, but opposition to, god or gods.

Which is why I propose that all discussion of religion be predicated on the question, "what do you believe and why?"

I don't feel extrapolating "belief in, but opposition to, god or gods" from the term 'antitheism' is accurate, since theism refers to the general belief of the existence of god or gods, while that extrapolated definition refers to the opposition against specific gods; more specific terminology for those cases would be more appropriate.

[Xathranaar]

The problem with antitheism is that it could encompass both the active disbelief in a god or gods, and the belief in, but opposition to, god or gods.

Which is why I propose that all discussion of religion be predicated on the question, "what do you believe and why?"

I don't feel extrapolating "belief in, but opposition to, god or gods" from the term 'antitheism' is accurate, since theism refers to the general belief of the existence of god or gods, while that extrapolated definition refers to the opposition against specific gods; more specific terminology for those cases would be more appropriate.

Oh I agree. Technically the term for such a person would be Maltheist, but you have a heck of a time explaining that to theists, and I just don't like the argument.

[YellowApple]

I don't feel extrapolating "belief in, but opposition to, god or gods" from the term 'antitheism' is accurate, since theism refers to the general belief of the existence of god or gods, while that extrapolated definition refers to the opposition against specific gods; more specific terminology for those cases would be more appropriate.

Oh I agree. Technically the term for such a person would be Maltheist, but you have a heck of a time explaining that to theists, and I just don't like the argument.

One tends to have a heck of a time explaining anything to some theists...

But I'm starting to love the tangential topics this thread jumps to. One day we start discussing mathematics, another day we start discussing linguistics. This thread is awesome.

[Czechanada]

Oh I agree. Technically the term for such a person would be Maltheist, but you have a heck of a time explaining that to theists, and I just don't like the argument.

One tends to have a heck of a time explaining anything to some theists...

But I'm starting to love the tangential topics this thread jumps to. One day we start discussing mathematics, another day we start discussing linguistics. This thread is awesome.

Yes.

[Aerodius]

I'm only answering because of my insatiable love for answering questions and writing out answers. ;-;

I was raised a Christian and don't consider myself under any denomination. I believe in Jesus, take the Bible literally when it isn't specifically stated to be taken otherwise, and have changed my lifestyle to suit my beliefs. I wasn't much into it growing up. Didn't have many good role models, guess you could say. Everyone around me was too into day-to-day life. Well, I got to studying evolutionary theory and was surprised by all the holes. With my understanding, I've come to think that natural adaptation is what is being mistaken as evolution. One species of bird can eventually branch into two, three, four, or five different species, but they'll always be birds. Having delved into the complexity of living beings, I concluded it was far too intelligent and perfect for random crash occurrence and went back to reading the Bible. Became a full-time believer again. The end. xD

[Threlizdun]

I'm only answering because of my insatiable love for answering questions and writing out answers. ;-;

I was raised a Christian and don't consider myself under any denomination. I believe in Jesus, take the Bible literally when it isn't specifically stated to be taken otherwise, and have changed my lifestyle to suit my beliefs.

I don't recall any parts in the Bible specifically stating they are not to be taken literally. In fact, this sounds more like an attempt to somehow force the God of the Gaps fallacy into scripture.

Well, I got to studying evolutionary theory and was surprised by all the holes. With my understanding, I've come to think that natural adaptation is what is being mistaken as evolution.

I believe you fail to realize that biological adaptation resulting from many generations of genetic mutations is a core principle of evolution.

One species of bird can eventually branch into two, three, four, or five different species, but they'll always be birds.

The rise of new species is still undeniably evolution. To say that birds have absolutely no potential to ever give rise to an organism that falls outside of the Aves class is horrendously absurd.

Having delved into the complexity of living beings, I concluded it was far too intelligent and perfect for random crash occurrence and went back to reading the Bible. Became a full-time believer again. The end. xD

Simply calling it a random crash occurrence does absolutely no justice to the issue. What you are describing is millions of years of genetic mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a proven fact. We know it occurs. The theory of evolution via natural selection is the best explanation for the process in which life has evolved over time. To ignore these scientific findings is one matter, but then to claim that it is too complex and attempt to answer the question by submitting the single most complex being conceivable as simplifying it is absolutely ludicrous.

[United States of Cascadia]

Simply calling it a random crash occurrence does absolutely no justice to the issue. What you are describing is millions of years of genetic mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a proven fact. We know it occurs. The theory of evolution via natural selection is the best explanation for the process in which life has evolved over time. To ignore these scientific findings is one matter, but then to claim that it is too complex and attempt to answer the question by submitting the single most complex being conceivable as simplifying it is absolutely ludicrous.

It's even more ludicrous when you consider that life is far from perfect. 99% of all life that has ever existed on earth no longer does. That alone is sobering. Every human being will die, and the ease at which it can occur should make you realize how amazing it is for us to be here. But none of that means that we needed some being to guide evolution, or guide our planet. We are one planet, in one solar system, in one galaxy. Many of these planets in far more ideal cosmic locations than ours. We struggled, to find a place on this small rock, like a flower in the cracks of concrete, but that flower does not need humans to help it grow, just as we did not need anything else. It is ultimately no surprise that Earth has life, we are in a far better location than many many others, but it still could have not gone our way.

[Czechanada]

I'm only answering because of my insatiable love for answering questions and writing out answers. ;-;

I was raised a Christian and don't consider myself under any denomination. I believe in Jesus, take the Bible literally when it isn't specifically stated to be taken otherwise, and have changed my lifestyle to suit my beliefs. I wasn't much into it growing up. Didn't have many good role models, guess you could say. Everyone around me was too into day-to-day life. Well, I got to studying evolutionary theory and was surprised by all the holes. With my understanding, I've come to think that natural adaptation is what is being mistaken as evolution. One species of bird can eventually branch into two, three, four, or five different species, but they'll always be birds. Having delved into the complexity of living beings, I concluded it was far too intelligent and perfect for random crash occurrence and went back to reading the Bible. Became a full-time believer again. The end. xD

Isn't that a logical fallacy you just made? An appeal to incredulity?

The complexity of living beings is not intelligent and perfect. The DNA of humans has a lot of junk data that serves no purpose. Furthermore, the human body itself has many inefficiencies and weaknesses, such as what surgeons call "God's little mistake": A major nerve or artery being extremely vulnerable in the temples of a skull. Furthermore, as I've posted a previous thread, scientists have discovered the common ancestor of mammals: a rat like creature; Also, there is a strong genetic link between dinosaurs and birds; so far as to call birds the descendants of dinosaurs. Therefore, your postulation of mutating into different species is false.

[Aerodius]

I don't recall any parts in the Bible specifically stating they are not to be taken literally. In fact, this sounds more like an attempt to somehow force the God of the Gaps fallacy into scripture.

God of the Gaps? o_0 Never heard of that. I was speaking about in Corinthians when Paul states his opinion as "one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy". He wasn't giving a command that no one should marry, but that his opinion is that nobody should marry, because he chose not to and found good in that, I suppose. That's all.

I believe you fail to realize that biological adaptation resulting from many generations of genetic mutations is a core principle of evolution.

Oh, no. I understand it also believes in a form of adaptation, but its idea surrounding it is that new things evolve from old things through these "mutations". My idea on adaptation is that old things remain the same since creation, only that they have an innate ability to change resistances to certain environments, temperatures, diseases, etc.. Like the spiders, fish and crabs found deep in caves. They've adapted to cave life by giving up pigmentation, scales for fish, and eyes for seeing, but they are still genetically identical to species living outside those caves who do have eyes and pigmentation and scales. And when bred outside of the caves they begin to regain those attributes after the first generation. I'm not asking anyone to believe as I do, that is just my belief and since you decided to point it out, thought I'd explain.

The rise of new species is still undeniably evolution. To say that birds have absolutely no potential to ever give rise to an organism that falls outside of the Aves class is horrendously absurd.

Well, that's your opinion. I don't like you forcing it on me by calling my opinions absurd, but I can't stop you, so that's all I have to say.

Simply calling it a random crash occurrence does absolutely no justice to the issue. What you are describing is millions of years of genetic mutations and natural selection. Evolution is a proven fact. We know it occurs. The theory of evolution via natural selection is the best explanation for the process in which life has evolved over time. To ignore these scientific findings is one matter, but then to claim that it is too complex and attempt to answer the question by submitting the single most complex being conceivable as simplifying it is absolutely ludicrous.

Again, that is your opinion. I have not seen any facts that have proven it in my head. In fact, just the opposite. But we are all entitled to our own beliefs, and mine are different from yours.

The DNA of humans has a lot of junk data that serves no purpose.

Some of that junk data has, over time, proven to be worth something. I don't doubt that it all has a purpose. IMHO. And you cannot flat-out call me wrong, does it make you feel better to say that? I haven't attacked anyone, only gave my beliefs. And to be honest, we're all genetically linked, because we're all from the same universe. There's nothing outside of DNA that exists as we and animals do and is living, breathing, growing. Evolution seems so silly to me because of course we're all genetically linked and such, we're all of the same material! But no proof has been found showing the process of macro-evolution. Therefore, I believe my thoughts to be truth, and I don't care whether you believe it or not. That wasn't my intent in stating it.

Now, all of you have a nice day.

[Mavorpen]

They've adapted to cave life by giving up pigmentation, scales for fish, and eyes for seeing, but they are still genetically identical to species living outside those caves who do have eyes and pigmentation and scales.

No they aren't. Source this.

And when bred outside of the caves they begin to regain those attributes after the first generation. I'm not asking anyone to believe as I do, that is just my belief and since you decided to point it out, thought I'd explain.

I'm calling bullshit. Source this.

Well, that's your opinion. I don't like you forcing it on me by calling my opinions absurd, but I can't stop you, so that's all I have to say.

It's not his opinion it's a scientifically established fact.

Again, that is your opinion. I have not seen any facts that have proven it in my head. In fact, just the opposite. But we are all entitled to our own beliefs, and mine are different from yours.

Too bad he's in fact right.

But no proof has been found showing the process of macro-evolution.

Complete bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

[Divair]

They've adapted to cave life by giving up pigmentation, scales for fish, and eyes for seeing, but they are still genetically identical to species living outside those caves who do have eyes and pigmentation and scales.

No they aren't. Source this.

And when bred outside of the caves they begin to regain those attributes after the first generation. I'm not asking anyone to believe as I do, that is just my belief and since you decided to point it out, thought I'd explain.

I'm calling bullshit. Source this.

Well, that's your opinion. I don't like you forcing it on me by calling my opinions absurd, but I can't stop you, so that's all I have to say.

It's not his opinion it's a scientifically established fact.

Again, that is your opinion. I have not seen any facts that have proven it in my head. In fact, just the opposite. But we are all entitled to our own beliefs, and mine are different from yours.

Too bad he's in fact right.

But no proof has been found showing the process of macro-evolution.

Complete bullshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

Mav, should I post my giant list of evidence for evolution?

[Mavorpen]

Mav, should I post my giant list of evidence for evolution?

Sure.

Speaking of which, I've been meaning to sig that or put it in my factbook for future reference.

[Divair]

Mav, should I post my giant list of evidence for evolution?

Sure.

Speaking of which, I've been meaning to sig that or put it in my factbook for future reference.

Right. Tallyho.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

[Tylande]

I'm a christian methodist because one of the gods was a real person and how the bible says everyone should be treated fairly

[Fintanland]

Mav, should I post my giant list of evidence for evolution?

And the beautiful thing about science is that, while this list is no doubt impressive, all that's needed is a lack of convincing disproof of the theory of evolution. As long as that doesn't turn up, Darwin is god. Finches for the Finch God!

[Seperates]

Mav, should I post my giant list of evidence for evolution?

And the beautiful thing about science is that, while this list is no doubt impressive, all that's needed is a lack of convincing disproof of the theory of evolution. As long as that doesn't turn up, Darwin is god. Finches for the Finch God!

Actually, what it needs is convincing proof that another theory is a more accurate model of reality than Natural Selection.