If you had a button that would turn all theists into atheists and agnostic?

[Norfolk And Chance]

All atheists think for themselves? Aren't we generalizing a bit there, Norfolk? The button would make them atheists, not independent thinkers.

How can you be atheist if you can't ask questions of religion and conclude through critical thinking that it is BS. You might think I'm wrong, but as far as I'm concerned thinking for yourself is a pre requisite of atheism.

So IMO, changing them to atheists would change them to critical thinkers because IMO the two are mutually exclusive.

Let's get pressing that button!

[Minimalist]

I don't believe that turning theists into mindless followers of our beliefs would really change much at all, do you?

It might shut them up. I'd settle for the peace and quiet. Remember over here the asswipes are always prattling on about how their god wants this done or that done.

[Shell B]

How can you be atheist if you can't ask questions of religion and conclude through critical thinking that it is BS.

Not BS. Plenty of idiots are atheists. It sounds like you want to think you are part of some elite group. In reality, atheists do not believe in god. Some fucking feral child who has never been exposed to humanity would be an atheist. Would that make him or her a critical thinker by default?

You might think I'm wrong, but as far as I'm concerned thinking for yourself is a pre requisite of atheism.

I do think you are wrong.

So IMO, changing them to atheists would change them to critical thinkers because IMO the two are mutually exclusive.

I really do not think you meant to say mutually exclusive right there. I'll let you sort it out. Even if that phrase meant what you think it means, it would not necessarily be true. There are plenty of critical thinkers who are religious and atheists who are idiots. Just because someone is a little kooky on the religion front does not mean they can not think critically at all. To suggest so is kind of asinine, in my opinion.

Let's get pressing that button!

There is no "let's" about it. Such a button is not only logically absurd, but suspension of disbelief does nothing to make it less absurd. Anyone who would push such a button is taking away the freedom of others. The idea is disgusting.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Not BS. Plenty of idiots are atheists. It sounds like you want to think you are part of some elite group.

Not elite, no. Because in the UK, atheists number nearly half of the population.

In reality, atheists do not believe in god. Some fucking feral child who has never been exposed to humanity would be an atheist. Would that make him or her a critical thinker by default?

No, it would make him know nothing either way. He wouldn't even be an atheist by default because he wouldn't even have the concept of god to "not believe in" or critically challenge. And of course the feral child could then show critical thinking (or not) should he later come in contact with religious people, his choice from there on in.

I do think you are wrong.

I really do not think you meant to say mutually exclusive right there. I'll let you sort it out.

I've been watching too many programmes where they wrongly use that phrase and it's stuck - of course to say that makes no sense - it should be mutually inclusive.

Even if that phrase meant what you think it means, it would not necessarily be true. There are plenty of critical thinkers who are religious and atheists who are idiots. Just because someone is a little kooky on the religion front does not mean they can not think critically at all. To suggest so is kind of asinine, in my opinion.

It is true that some theists can compartmentalise their critical thinking skills so they don't think critically on religion but do on other stuff - but I never said theists weren't capable of critical thinking at all. I said atheists are.

You disagree that's fine by me, but taking away the feral child example or long lost Amazon tribes, I think a normal person that has been exposed to some religion, ie nearly everybody on Earth, you cannot really become atheist without questioning and thinking.

There is no "let's" about it. Such a button is not only logically absurd, but suspension of disbelief does not nothing to make it less absurd. Anyone who would push such a button is taking away the freedom of others. The idea is disgusting.

LOL, I'm not going to even respond to your outrage there. No need to take the button comment so seriously, no need at all.

[Shell B]

Not elite, no. Because in the UK, atheists number nearly half of the population.

And you think that none of those people have ever developed an opinion based on someone else's opinion?

No, it would make him know nothing either way. He wouldn't even be an atheist by default because he wouldn't even have the concept of god to "not believe in" or critically challenge. And of course the feral child could then show critical thinking (or not) should he later come in contact with religious people, his choice from there on in.

You do not have to know god exists to be an atheist. If you don't believe in a god or gods, you're an atheist. It doesn't matter if you know some people believe in gods or not. Just to clarify, you said previously that they think for themselves, not that they are critical thinkers. It's not quite the same.

It is true that some theists can compartmentalise their critical thinking skills so they don't think critically on religion but do on other stuff - but I never said theists weren't capable of critical thinking at all. I said atheists are.

Quite right. That is not what you were saying. You said all atheists are capable of thinking for themselves. It's just not true. All atheists do not believe in god and are human, presumably. That is all.

You disagree that's fine by me, but taking away the feral child example or long lost Amazon tribes, I think a normal person that has been exposed to some religion, ie nearly everybody on Earth, you cannot really become atheist without questioning and thinking.

Of course you can. Just because that is how you and I got here means nothing. There is almost certainly an atheist out there who is only atheist because his parents taught him to be. He didn't have to think for himself. He only had to keep disagreeing with theists.

There is no "let's" about it. Such a button is not only logically absurd, but suspension of disbelief does nothing to make it less absurd. Anyone who would push such a button is taking away the freedom of others. The idea is disgusting.

LOL, I'm not going to even respond to your outrage there. No need to take the button comment so seriously, no need at all.

My outrage? It really gets old when every noob you disagree with pats himself on the back thinking he pissed you off just because you stated your opinion. I'm not angry at all. I am stating my opinion. Just because it runs counter to yours -- I'm disagreeing, in other words -- does not mean I am angry.

[Norfolk And Chance]

[quote='Shell B' pid='206887' dateline='1321405840']
And you think that none of those people have ever developed an opinion based on someone else's opinion?[/quote]

No?

Of course people have developed opinions based on other peoples opinions. I'm sure we both have too. But we've nearly all been exposed to some sort of religion so even if you are just following another atheists opinion, you still know about religion which can counter that opinion. if you've got a comparison you then need to make a choice.

[quote]You do not have to know god exists to be an atheist. If you don't believe in a god or gods, you're an atheist. It doesn't matter if you know some people believe in gods or not.[/quote]

This definition is definitely a matter for debate - not too seriously of course because in the grand scheme of things its not that important. The definition of atheism as you say is "Non belief in god or gods" That's it. Just that. I'd agree too.

However to not believe in something, an idea (god) needs to be proposed to you. You then reject that proposal because there is no evidence to back it up. You refuse to believe.

To not believe is not the same as to not know, just as to believe is not the same as to know. If you are a newborn baby, or feral child, you don't not believe in god, you just don't know of any god.

Do you not believe in something you've never ever thought of? No you just don't know, because you never thought or heard of it. Anyway...not a biggie really.

[quote]Quite right. That is what you were saying. You said all atheists are capable of critical thinking. It's just not true. All atheists do not believe in god and are human, presumably. That is all. [/quote]

All atheists have made a choice. Even if brought up atheist, nobody escapes the tentacles of religion. So there is still a choice to make and evidence to examine, and that needs some reasoning.

[quote]Of course you can. Just because that is how you and I got here means nothing. There is almost certainly an atheist out there who is only atheist because his parents taught him to be. He didn't have to think for himself. He only had to keep disagreeing with theists. [/quote]

We don't want theists to know that.

[quote=Shell]There is no "let's" about it. Such a button is not only logically absurd, but suspension of disbelief does nothing to make it less absurd. Anyone who would push such a button is taking away the freedom of others. The idea is disgusting.


[quote]My outrage? It really gets old when every noob you disagree with pats himself on the back thinking he pissed you off just because you stated your opinion. I'm not angry at all. I am stating my opinion. Just because it runs counter to yours -- I'm disagreeing, in other words -- does not mean I am angry.
[/quote]

Point I was making was not that you disagreed, but that you took my comment too seriously, that's how it felt.

We were talking about an imaginary red button that I said jokingly "no problem", "let's press the button!", which you managed to call "logically absurd" (well yeah!) and "disgusting"

And no, I wasn't patting myself on the back either, it wasn't about getting one over on you, I was just a bit shocked by your reaction actually.

If you feel I have trolled you in some way with the last comment which caused you to say "noob patting yourself on the back", then I apologise. But look at my reaction to yours in context.

[Shell B]

No?

Of course people have developed opinions based on other peoples opinions. I'm sure we both have too. But we've nearly all been exposed to some sort of religion so even if you are just following another atheists opinion, you still know about religion which can counter that opinion. if you've got a comparison you then need to make a choice.

You said all atheists think for themselves. As a statement, even in context, it is clearly and demonstrably untrue. Atheists are human beings, not superhuman beings, with the exception of me, of course.

This definition is definitely a matter for debate - not too seriously of course because in the grand scheme of things its not that important. The definition of atheism as you say is "Non belief in god or gods" That's it. Just that. I'd agree too.

However to not believe in something, an idea (god) needs to be proposed to you. You then reject that proposal because there is no evidence to back it up. You refuse to believe.

To not believe is not the same as to not know, just as to believe is not the same as to know. If you are a newborn baby, or feral child, you don't not believe in god, you just don't know of any god.

Do you not believe in something you've never ever thought of? No you just don't know, because you never thought or heard of it. Anyway...not a biggie really.

It's not a biggie. You're right. However, I'm quite a literal person. You can't believe in something you have not heard of yet.

All atheists have made a choice. Even if brought up atheist, nobody escapes the tentacles of religion. So there is still a choice to make and evidence to examine, and that needs some reasoning.

You have clearly not spent a lot of time around idiots. Let's take a racist kid for example. Their parents tell them *insert racial slur here* are bad. The kids begins to believe these people are bad. He meets this people, interacts with them and has enough opportunity to think independently about it, but never bothers to do so. Momma says *racial slur* are bad, so it must be true. I personally believe that there are atheists out there who simply never bothered to question what they were told. Whether the choice is there to make or there is evidence to examine is irrelevant if this hypothetical atheist bothers with neither. I think that is the best I can explain.

We don't want theists to know that.

Eh, they need some fodder.

Point I was making was not that you disagreed, but that you took my comment too seriously, that's how it felt.

Meh. You're not the first person to take my manner of speaking to mean I am angry. It happens all the time.

We were talking about an imaginary red button that I said jokingly "no problem", "let's press the button!", which you managed to call "logically absurd" (well yeah!) and "disgusting"

I didn't call you or your argument logically absurd or disgusting. I was talking about a hypothetical.

And no, I wasn't patting myself on the back either, it wasn't about getting one over on you, I was just a bit shocked by your reaction actually.

I don't see what is so shocking. I just stated my opinion.

If you feel I have trolled you in some way with the last comment which caused you to say "noob patting yourself on the back", then I apologise. But look at my reaction to yours in context.

I don't feel like you trolled me. I simply do not see what is wrong with my comments compared to yours. You were joking. I was stating my actual opinion about the hypothetical that was posed. Your personality may be different than mine, but it doesn't mean I was taking things too seriously.

[Norfolk And Chance]

OK, well I'm not going to keep on requoting everything because we'll be on at it for ever.

And yes you are a literal person (me not so much but I suppose I've got other strengths), but to bring up one point you made literally - "You can't believe in something you have not heard of yet." Yep, absolutely. You are right.

But - you also can't NOT believe in something you've not heard of yet. The thing is, this is also true. Because belief (or non belief) needs a subject matter, by definition. (belief = acceptance of a subject to be true without relying on evidence, non belief = non acceptance of a subject to be true)

So because belief requires an idea/subject matter is impossible to either believe or not believe in something you're not aware of.

You can only be unaware of something you've not aware of. This is logical.

Those who say we are born atheist, actually, are wrong. I know it's a popular comment we've all heard, so oft used that it must be true, but it is logically wrong.

We are born neither and a feral child would be neither - using the common description of atheism/theism - (that is "non belief in a god or gods".)

[Shell B]

Obviously my previous analogy was not sufficient. My most recent analogy is much more in line with what I am trying to say. Regardless of how we see atheism, the initial sentiment is untrue. You said all atheists think for themselves in such a way that implied that theists would start to think for themselves only after being forced to become atheist, thus implying that only atheists think for themselves and that all do so. Ignoring the first implication that theists are not capable of thinking for themselves and focusing only on the idea that all atheists think for themselves, would you not question it when considering how many people blindly follow what others teach them to believe in all walks of life?

[Mystic]

If you had a button that would turn all theists into atheists and agnostic would you push it? why or why not?

I would push the button to turn them into atheists in a heart beat.

Are you a strong atheist or a weak atheist?