Contradictory atheist arguments

[imaginethat]

Both are true, no one ever believed in god or santa claus without being told there was a god and there was a Santa Claus.
And then when you get older, you realize your were told about God and Santa Claus to get you to behave.
It just takes some people longer to figure out God than to figure out Santa....

I mean no offense, but with regard to a God/creator/creators, that's an arrogant pronouncement/

As Lloyd said earlier, agnosticism is an honest, supportable position. Theism and atheism are beliefs.

 

[imaginethat]

No one ever believed in Charles Darwin without being told there was a Charles Darwin.


And then when you get older, you realize you were told about the Criminal Justice System to get you to behave. And were told about how awesome science to get you to buy washing machines and Ipads, despite most advertising and scientific propaganda being willfully or intentionally misleading.


It just takes some people longer to figure out Charles Darwin than to figure out God...

Yawn...

Why do you say "believe in Charles Darwin?" What do you mean?

 

[imaginethat]

Great, but that sort of proves my point. You did not invent the world being created in 6 days, Adam and Eve, the great flood. Or twelve disciples and all that. You developed a totally different spirituality.

But if an apple had hit you on the head, you would have either gotten a concussion, or formulated the same law of gravity as we have now.

You are correct, yet I did weigh each of those concepts; the six day creation, A&E, and The Flood simply not being supportable through observations.

On the other hand, the universe exists and so do we, and something is responsible for that.

I have no problem with superior, god-like beings and think it's parochial to deny the possibility of gods/creators, which imo is not merely a possibility but a likelihood. It's possible the universe "always was" and had no creator/creators, but if so that prospect would run counter to everything else we can observe.

The universe could always have been, but that still doesn't account for its origin, or it's laws.

The question I've been trying to answer recently is: Where is the universe? That question joins my questioning of the universe's inflationary epoch, when the universe itself expanded at a rate that far, far exceeded the speed of light.

 

[RNG]

I mean no offense, but with regard to a God/creator/creators, that's an arrogant pronouncement/

As Lloyd said earlier, agnosticism is an honest, supportable position. Theism and atheism are beliefs.

I will differ about what an agnostic is. Mx. Google in the little blurb that comes up when you put in "agnostic meaning" gives you:

noun-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

​

To me that first sentence suggests that there may be a god just that man can not know its nature.

Whereas an atheist just says there is no reason to believe there is a god.

I think a child who has not been exposed to the concept of a god is closer to the atheist position.

 

[imaginethat]

I will differ about what an agnostic is. Mx. Google in the little blurb that comes up when you put in "agnostic meaning" gives you:

noun-
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

To me that first sentence suggests that there may be a god just that man can not know its nature.

Whereas an atheist just says there is no reason to believe there is a god.

I think a child who has not been exposed to the concept of a god is closer to the atheist position.

Differ with what? I offered no definition.

There may be a god just that man can not know its nature. That's defensible or unassailable take your pick

Every time I read this - an atheist just says there is no reason to believe there is a god - my mind adds: ...and therefore an atheist denies the existence of (a) God.

 

[imaginethat]

~sn=ip~
I think a child who has not been exposed to the concept of a god is closer to the atheist position.

That may be, but testing that belief is not possible. Perhaps, words impede the understanding of God, or impede communication with God. That isn't testable either.

 

[RNG]

Differ with what? I offered no definition.

There may be a god just that man can not know its nature. That's defensible or unassailable take your pick

Every time I read this - an atheist just says there is no reason to believe there is a god - my mind adds: ...and therefore an atheist denies the existence of (a) God.

I don't. I say that I can't prove there is no god and Inquisitor can't prove there is one.

My personal soapbox is exclusively used to denounce the belief in the god of the bible.

 

[goober]

No one ever believed in Charles Darwin without being told there was a Charles Darwin.


And then when you get older, you realize you were told about the Criminal Justice System to get you to behave. And were told about how awesome science to get you to buy washing machines and Ipads, despite most advertising and scientific propaganda being willfully or intentionally misleading.


It just takes some people longer to figure out Charles Darwin than to figure out God...

Yawn...

Here's the big difference between God and Charles Darwin, there really was a Charles Darwin..........and there really is a Criminal Justice system.

 

[goober]

I mean no offense, but with regard to a God/creator/creators, that's an arrogant pronouncement/

As Lloyd said earlier, agnosticism is an honest, supportable position. Theism and atheism are beliefs.

There is difference between believing something exists, despite the complete lack of evidence, and not believing something exists, because there is no evidence.

 

[Nwolfe35]

1. "All children are atheists until they are indoctrinated into religion".

2. "Religion is a holdover from childhood - like believing in Santa Claus, until they grow out of it".

So which one is true? They can't both be right. Are they "born atheists" until they become religious, or "born theist" until they become atheist?

Not contradictory at all.

Children, when born, do not believe in God and do not believe in Santa. They are indoctrinated into believing in both.

Eventually a child stops believing in Santa but (in most cases) does not stop believing in God. Thus belief in God is a holdover from childhood.