Originally posted by sonhouseA baby does not know about religion and therefore has no belief and can
Well that sounds like a good thing then. Your own bible says blessed are the children, so Jesus must love atheists.
not be an atheist. An atheist knows about religion and has chosen atheism
as his religion. The atheist believes there is no God. The baby has no such
belief.
Originally posted by RJHindsA baby, therefore can also not be a theist. It is only after a thorough brain washing by previously brainwashed victims that a child becomes a theist. Please note, no one becomes a theist from direct intervention of god, only from other victims!
A baby does not know about religion and therefore has no belief and can
not be an atheist. An atheist knows about religion and has chosen atheism
as his religion. The atheist believes there is no God. The baby has no such
belief.
Originally posted by 667joeBut if the baby was very intelligent, genius level, and was not subjected
A baby, therefore can also not be a theist. It is only after a thorough brain washing by previously brainwashed victims that a child becomes a theist. Please note, no one becomes a theist from direct intervention of god, only from other victims!
to any religious influence, he would eventually come to the conclusion
that the heavens and the earth had a beginning. Then he would believe
they were made amd had a Maker.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt seems odd then that a significant number of genius' who did have religious influence come to the opposite conclusion.
But if the baby was very intelligent, genius level, and was not subjected
to any religious influence, he would eventually come to the conclusion
that the heavens and the earth had a beginning. Then he would believe
they were made amd had a Maker.
Originally posted by RJHindsBut then he would ask how the maker got here and come to the conclusion that if the maker was always here, it is just as possible that the universe has always been here, or, to simplify it, if the maker came from nothing, it is just as likely the universe came from nothing. In either case, a maker is not necessary.
But if the baby was very intelligent, genius level, and was not subjected
to any religious influence, he would eventually come to the conclusion
that the heavens and the earth had a beginning. Then he would believe
they were made amd had a Maker.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou know, because of your twisted view of reality, I'm going to leave it here and turn the other cheek.
Now I suppose you don't think atheism is a religion because you don't
believe something else I quoted or said. So, again you are welcome to
your opinion, just as I am. I am not saying you must agree with me.
But speak out with your beliefs on a subject and just don't wait until
you find something you can criticize. Thank you.
However:
You are like the little boy who cried "wolf". Not because there is no wolf, but because in most cases, your wolves turn out to be puppies. This is why people start to ignore what you say. Just because you hold an opinion, doesn't mean you have to shout it from the rooftops. More so if your opinion is bizarre (i.e. Creationism). People who shout bizarre opinions (not your "atheism is a religion" opinion, that has some validity) in forums are usually trolls looking for a flurry of posts from others, and as such, most people learn to ignore them. Your vehemence towards me isn't winning you any converts to your way of thinking.
Originally posted by 667joeA Maker is not necessary, no. Only if you want the universe to come out the way it has, with intelligent life, instead of sheer chaos.
But then he would ask how the maker got here and come to the conclusion that if the maker was always here, it is just as possible that the universe has always been here, or, to simplify it, if the maker came from nothing, it is just as likely the universe came from nothing. In either case, a maker is not necessary.
Originally posted by SuzianneSo you think that intelligent life implies a maker? Why?
A Maker is not necessary, no. Only if you want the universe to come out the way it has, with intelligent life, instead of sheer chaos.
What is 'sheer chaos'? Why would a maker be required for anything other than sheer chaos?
Originally posted by twhiteheadSheer chaos would be the absence of rules. We are slowly coming to realize the physical rules of the universe we live in. The rules of physical interactions between elements of the small (subatomic particles) and the large (planets and up to include galaxies) determine the possibility of intelligent life occurring somewhere in the universe. The rules are determined by the Maker. In our case, He chose the rules which would create the universe we see (and live in) today. And think of the knife's edge of existence humans occupy. If the rules were slightly different, we probably wouldn't be here. I'm guessing if the rules were radically different, we wouldn't be here either. Intelligent life does imply a Maker to create the precise rules which lead to intelligent life.
So you think that intelligent life implies a maker? Why?
What is 'sheer chaos'? Why would a maker be required for anything other than sheer chaos?
Originally posted by SuzianneThere is no reason to think intelligent life needed a creator. If so, who created god? (Clearly , in your line of thought, god must be intelligent, so how could god exist without an intelligent creator?)
A Maker is not necessary, no. Only if you want the universe to come out the way it has, with intelligent life, instead of sheer chaos.
Originally posted by 667joeGod is the Alpha and the Omega. God is spirit, not life. Life is created (usually through the tool of evolution -- another system of laws requiring a creator, just like the Big Bang and the accompanying physical laws governing our universe), and is therefore less than the Creator.
There is no reason to think intelligent life needed a creator. If so, who created god? (Clearly , in your line of thought, god must be intelligent, so how could god exist without an intelligent creator?)
I also thought circular reasoning was long ago proven ineffective as an argument tool.