I had written something that somewhat also relates to the question in this thread that I will post here: Persian culture ultimately represents at its core a deeply mystical, poetic, polite, Zoroastrian and Sufi influenced, otherworldly culture, confronted by a western culture that is blunt (at times even rude), more into prose than verse, form over substance, power over virtue, focused on worldly possessions instead of any otherworldly rewards. There is indeed a clash of civilizations, but the religious and political lines drawn do not demarcate its boundaries properly. In that clash of civilizations, there are those who (in the Zoroastrian tradition) believe in genuine free will, because they do not see victory (for the side of good versus evil, truth versus falsehood) foreordained or inevitable, particularly in any immediate sense. Our individual choice in the battle between good and evil, rather meaningful (as it can affect the duration of this cosmic battle and perhaps even its outcome). The righteousness of a side not necessarily proven by who has might and who has won. On the other side, there are those who believe might makes right; all the rest lies intended to merely serve might. Even in their religion, everything already foreordained. The winner (the mighty) the one who is right. Our free will a lie. Until we die. The ethos of the purely monotheistic Abrahamic religions sometimes encouraged these attitudes, even if Zoroastrian influences permeated them all, leaving divisions within their ranks that were not necessarily about each of their sectarian and denominational differences. That fundamental division more in the spirit than in the form. I was born into the world dominated by what the west has created from these historical and cultural strains, aware of its impermanence, searching for the one Iran has always promised, hoping to see it one day be able to deliver.
I saw this and the first thing that popped into my head was Sandrew Dice Clays. Some of you will be too young to get it.
Close, its a belief system that is acted upon, which distinguishes it from philosophical hypothesis. Not every aspect but much of it could certainly be fashioned into a religion, you see it all the time here in the leftie rightie wars.
The purpose of religion, primarily, is to help people deal with mysteries. The secondary purpose is to define a life style that is consistent with a safe and peaceful society.
Does there have to be? If the difference between religion and spirituality is the formalize structure, cannot one develop a religion just for them that doesn't automatically include anyone else?
I was thinking in terms of someone having their own personal religion, not associated with any given organized religion, but still with their own rituals and such. Pagan is a broad enough term that it would encompass such individuals.
In rereading, I think I was, in my head, substituting social for cultural. Yeah I can see how cultural can influence one's religion, but still we have plenty of instances of new concepts and aspects entering into religion, which seems to be the reason why we have so many denominations. SO I have to wonder if culture has to be part of the development of any given religion, on an individual basis. Can not one develop one whole cloth?
everyone born an atheist? depends, I suppose, how you define the term atheist. go ahead ask a toddler if they are an atheist, theist, spiritualist, etc. and let me know the answer.
What you call religion is definitely a form of indoctrination, but that is true of even worthwhile education. Atheism, however, is also most definitely not what everyone or anyone is born to. Atheism itself arises from indoctrination. Regardless of culture or society, a form of form of idea or search in the supernatural competes in the human soul or psyche with rational skepticism and agnosticism. Arriving at definite conclusions about the issue is evidence of intellectual weakness and impatience. Even those professing religious belief will have a form of skepticism buried in their psyche. Sometimes the greater the doubt, the greater the sense of insecurity and the less tolerance showed towards those who might fan such skepticism or doubt. Conversely, those who have arrived at set conclusions not about particular religious beliefs, but the existence of some higher being are simply closed minded and dull. You cannot hide behind science to justify atheism either. Science and the scientific method can only deal with the forces in the material world. Yet, science itself will tell you that the material world where such forces reign are but a small segment of our universe. Scientists calculate that something like 5% of the universe operates in accordance with such material forces, while the rest is composed of unknowable forces (Dark Energy) and other unknown ones referred to as Dark Matter. Within the material world we live in, my view is that the inner human quest for knowledge beyond just its utilitarian value is the light within us meant to guide us to truth. Our mind (reason) one of the main tools available to help us chart and correct our path. The laws of evolution operative in the material world, from the physical, to biological, to social, to cultural, to intellectual and spiritual, the most important force of nature to eventually guide the story of life to its destination. In this evolutionary path, one of the greatest challenges socially, culturally and ultimately politically, is how to make sure the path of human evolution and competition that nourishes it based on our basic instincts, is not led too astray by those who profess strong beliefs in dogma (of whatever nature) and want it enforced on others. Nor such path abused by monopolistic forces which will inevitably require falsehood to oppress the quest for truth.
technically we cant even say that newborns are agnostic either since each one is a choice as you infer. BUT that doesnt stop atheists trying to add to their numbers by hook n crook.
Everyone born into this world is indoctrinated with the beliefs of the parents be it atheist, christian or pet rock. Every culture on the planet grew as a result of beliefs, that morphed into religion and finally culture. Simple to the extreme.
There is no such inference there, save maybe in your head. Agnostic would be part of the "etc" used. Or stop theists from broad brushing? And yes I did it by way of sarcastic example. In the end while there are indeed militarant and evangelical atheists out there, the vast majority of them don't bother to do anything to try and "convert" other people to atheism. But feel free to provide any studies to prove otherwise.
That would be tradition. But tradition discounts the possibility of the existence and intercession of a real and living God. In which case it would simply be the truth as opposed to just another religion.
The inference isw when he said "ask a newborn" or baby, which required a thought through response to answer. Any number of atheist philosophers, you know them Im sure. tradition is culture, culture is religion, religion is beliefs.
That line has an inference that they are nothing, not even agnostic. They have not been exposed to anything so as to have developed an position on the topic/issue. Not a clue, and especially not any on who you might thinking of. Can you show me a study that shows atheists are attempting to add to their numbers in any significant amount yet alone doing so by "hook n crook"?
I think that's what I just said? The point being all isms are chosen you can't have a social construct ism or an ist by default. Sure they do here's an atheist right below evangelizing. As you can see the claim is everyone born is an atheist which is an impossible condition. Not only is that false because JC was a Jew, and he fulfilled a Jewish prophecy, from a religion that existed a thousand years before atheism if I can believe the above post is correct. In addition religions are based on beliefs beliefs that cannot be proven atheists cannot prove their beliefs anymore than a Christian can so what we have here is a religious war between atheists and Christians.
AnTaibase's statement holds no implication that a baby born is agnostic, but thinking that it did would be the only reason to make a comment that a baby can't be an agnostic either. Since you didn't quote anything, I'm not sure what you are countering. I acknowledged that there are militerant and evangelical atheists. Every grouping has its extremists, whether the group is organized or not. What I asked for was evidence that atheists in any significant numbers are trying to "add to their numbers by hook n crook." Not that some few exist, but that there is some concerted effort towards that. Even the quote you just provided does not show that atheists as a whole are trying to "add to their numbers by hook n crook." Hell, it doesn't even show the "hook n crook" part. I agree that atheism is belief based, although neither a belief system nor a religion. I've said it for years on this forum. But that doesn't address my point that atheists, with a few exceptions, are not trying to "add to their numbers by hook n crook." That is either a goal post shift or a strawman. I haven't quite figured out which.
