Children brought up with no God are MORE generous and tolerant, study finds

[BarakzaiAbdali]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/617...erous-tolerant

"Agnostic and atheist kids were significantly more likely to share than children whose parents were religious.

But children who believe in God were more likely to be vengeful and back harsher punishments for those who hurt others.

It was suggested this was because religious children feel as they are going to heaven they are less concerned about the consequences of being mean.

The findings was in line with previous research in adults which showed that the more religious a person was the more intolerant they were."


Anybody want to discuss?

Did you read the actual primary study?

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...15)01167-7.pdf

A few things to consider.

1. The comparator group called "Not religious" is not defined. That is, no where in the paper does it define "Not religious" as Dawkins level atheist. It

2. Notice figure 2. They refer, in the 3 dimensional scatter plot, to religiosity.

What is the measure of "religiosity?" How is it defined in each of these subgroups. We are not given any reference that defines this term except that religiosity, according to the results section encompasses: 1. Frequency of religious practice 2. Household spirituality 3. the vague category of "overall religiousness"

We have no information as to what, say within the Christian and Islamic subgroups "frequency of religious practice" exactly means. For instance, would sadaqah and/or zakat which fall under "religious practice" count? Or is it the Peeza wakth Lmeenz guy that hangs out at the mosque 5 times a day because that is his social structure? Its an incomplete measure of religiosity if "frequency of religious practice" is measured by the number of times one attends a mosque vs the other practices/acts which are considered equally valid "frequencies of religious practice."

For instance, a Muslim that does not give the zakah is not actually fulfilling the totality of his faith - and within the Muslim subgroup, though a 5 times a day prayer may see himself or herself as "religious" he or she may not be religious by the gold standard of the religion itself.

In fact, one of the jokes about the Afghan Russo Conflict was that everyone, the Royalists, Communists, and Mujahideen used to all put down their guns for a few minutes to go do their prayer and then start shooting at eachother again.

3. Religious literacy is no where measured or taken into account in the univariate analysis.

For instance, George W Bush views himself as "religious." He might have answered the survey questions accordingly. But if one compares his level of literacy with say that of Pope Francis or Francis Collins or the Dean at Harvard seminary - would their definitions of "religiosity" and what defines accordance with the textual definitions in the religions be considered in this definition?

So the point one makes is that if the study seeks to compare Christians or Muslims to the "Not religious" Category are they comparing scripturally literate Muslims and Christians who are familar with the details of scriptural instruction?

Would say, Jimmy Swaggart, the 1980s missionary caught up in sexual scandals, who answered the questions under the three categories be deemed as "religiously observant?"

4. Also as an interpsonal harm issue... that result is actually the most interesting out of the whole paper. Interpersonal relationships and perception of actions in a society are those around which laws and customs are crafted right?

So in a sense, religious codification of laws regulating interpersonal behavior may very well be either a marker of ethnic/social/anthropoligical history or it may be a perception of social justice and injustice.

Basically, one might surmise that a biologically suitable way forward in line with regulating human behavior for the betterment of society led the development of religious thought processes within man to regulate the level of interpersonal "harm." And that this may be more in line with a biological viable society.

I mean its not lost on epidemiologists that the current situation in very secularized parts of Europe has resulted in plummeting birth rates far below the 2.4 births per household needed to maintain a steady state stable society. This is a very relevant case in Russia that has led the government to reward women to bare more children.

In this same way, human behavior challenging the biological norms in a secular fashion may sound A-OK in a philosophical sense - but the reality is that humans may have evolved these mechanisms to ensure proper growth, stability, and avoidance of devastating interpersonal, intertribal, interclan, and now international conflict.

5. Springboarding off 2, is all altruism beneficial? For instance, if a husband has a wife and kids or a nation state has resources - if the husband decides to allocate 50% of his resources to another woman versus his progency and wife being the first priority FOLLOWED by some limited altruism - will that result in societal betterment? Or should altruism be somewhat limited as per the discussion above regarding the possible beneficial aspect of regulating interpersonal behavior (emphasis not on INTRApersonal behavior or what we do for our own selves and with our own selves).

Also, what of the practical aspects of religious zeal often, in history resulting in mass "altruism" like the Ghazi brigades in Shah Amanullah's time who rendered numerous "altruistic" self sacrifices when a particular stimulus arose such that the single actions of those people rendered an independent Afghanistan at that time?

Basically, the paper defines altruism in a particular way - number of stickers shared.

So the measure of "altruism" that they decide to allocate really has no impact on actual real life atruistic practice.... its a surrogate that is an inanimate object/resource that is disconnected from any true altruistic outcome.

6. Reemphasizing religious literacy I discussed above... Islam and the Prophetic message have already handled this issue and answered your criticism generations ago.

The hadith literature noted the disconnect between the definition the authors defined as "religiosity" as the true "spirit of the religion"

The Bukhari and The Muslim, in which Prophet Muhammed SAWS narrates that the very first people who will be called to task on the Day of Judgement, and the very first people who will be rewarded and punished on the day of the judgement, will be the Hafiz (memorizer of Holy Quran), the martyr (the Shaheed) and the one who gave up and spend his money and finanical resources all the time for the sake of Allah.
These are the first three people whom Allah will call in front of him. The memorizer (the hafiz) of the Quran and the martyr who died in a legitimate expedition and the charitable person, and as everybody looking at them. They will think Allah’s honoring them, Allah is rewarding them, and Allah will give them the first share of the pie of Jannah.
So Allah will then ask this Hafiz, why did you memorize the Holy Quran, and why did you recite at these gatherings and these mosques. Why did you go and do this?
So the Hafiz will stand up and stay with pride and he will say Oh Allah, I did it to bring honour to your book, I did it for the respect of the religion. For the glory of the religion. I did it for the sake of Allah.
Allah will say, “You’re lying” and the angels will agree and say, ‘Yes! you’re lying.’
And the books will brought forth and it will be clear that his intention, Allah will say, “your intention was not to please me, you recited the Quran so that people would call you Qari, Hafiz, Sheikh and they did. So get your reward from them.”
And then the second person the martyr, the one who waged a legitimate expedition and he gave his life for the cause of Allah SWT, he will be asked, why did you spend your life in the way of Allah?
And the man will say, “Because I wanted to bring help to the religion, bringing help to Islam or glory to Islam, I wanted to defend the religion, defend the weak. The homeless and the poor.
‘I did it for your sake, Oh Allah SAWT’ and the Allah will once again say, “You’re lying and Allah will say, you only did it so that people could call you, Mujahid, brave man, you have done so much and the people did, you got your reward from them, none from me.
Finally, the same with the third person, he will say, “I gave up my money to be generous, person for your religion. And Allah will say, “You’re lying” and the angels will agree and say, ‘You’re lying.’ And Allah will say, you only did it, so that you cloud be known in the community. So that people would call you generous and that is exactly what they did. You got your reward from them, so don’t expect anything from me.
And then Allah will punish these three kind of people in front of all the creation and they will be the every first people to enter the hell fire.

And even delineates further that within the "religious" category, a sliver of those that define themselves as such are actually "scripturally observant"

[QUOTE] My ummah will be divided into 73 sects... [QUOTE]

or the famous hadith of the prostitute that slaked the dehydrated dog's thirst with water from her shoe being saved.

The latter shows once again that the definition of religiosity that the authors decided to apply in no way correlates with the more important measures of 1. Religious literacy and 2. Religious literacy coupled with religiosity (possibly in the manner defined by the authors).

In summary, you are a poor poor analyst without much ability or introspection with respect to analyzing scientific literature in a meaningful way.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

[QUOTE=BarakzaiAbdali;778829]Did you read the actual primary study?

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...15)01167-7.pdf

A few things to consider.

1. The comparator group called "Not religious" is not defined. That is, no where in the paper does it define "Not religious" as Dawkins level atheist. It

2. Notice figure 2. They refer, in the 3 dimensional scatter plot, to religiosity.

What is the measure of "religiosity?" How is it defined in each of these subgroups. We are not given any reference that defines this term except that religiosity, according to the results section encompasses: 1. Frequency of religious practice 2. Household spirituality 3. the vague category of "overall religiousness"

We have no information as to what, say within the Christian and Islamic subgroups "frequency of religious practice" exactly means. For instance, would sadaqah and/or zakat which fall under "religious practice" count? Or is it the Peeza wakth Lmeenz guy that hangs out at the mosque 5 times a day because that is his social structure? Its an incomplete measure of religiosity if "frequency of religious practice" is measured by the number of times one attends a mosque vs the other practices/acts which are considered equally valid "frequencies of religious practice."

For instance, a Muslim that does not give the zakah is not actually fulfilling the totality of his faith - and within the Muslim subgroup, though a 5 times a day prayer may see himself or herself as "religious" he or she may not be religious by the gold standard of the religion itself.

In fact, one of the jokes about the Afghan Russo Conflict was that everyone, the Royalists, Communists, and Mujahideen used to all put down their guns for a few minutes to go do their prayer and then start shooting at eachother again.

3. Religious literacy is no where measured or taken into account in the univariate analysis.

For instance, George W Bush views himself as "religious." He might have answered the survey questions accordingly. But if one compares his level of literacy with say that of Pope Francis or Francis Collins or the Dean at Harvard seminary - would their definitions of "religiosity" and what defines accordance with the textual definitions in the religions be considered in this definition?

So the point one makes is that if the study seeks to compare Christians or Muslims to the "Not religious" Category are they comparing scripturally literate Muslims and Christians who are familar with the details of scriptural instruction?

Would say, Jimmy Swaggart, the 1980s missionary caught up in sexual scandals, who answered the questions under the three categories be deemed as "religiously observant?"

4. Also as an interpsonal harm issue... that result is actually the most interesting out of the whole paper. Interpersonal relationships and perception of actions in a society are those around which laws and customs are crafted right?

So in a sense, religious codification of laws regulating interpersonal behavior may very well be either a marker of ethnic/social/anthropoligical history or it may be a perception of social justice and injustice.

Basically, one might surmise that a biologically suitable way forward in line with regulating human behavior for the betterment of society led the development of religious thought processes within man to regulate the level of interpersonal "harm." And that this may be more in line with a biological viable society.

I mean its not lost on epidemiologists that the current situation in very secularized parts of Europe has resulted in plummeting birth rates far below the 2.4 births per household needed to maintain a steady state stable society. This is a very relevant case in Russia that has led the government to reward women to bare more children.

In this same way, human behavior challenging the biological norms in a secular fashion may sound A-OK in a philosophical sense - but the reality is that humans may have evolved these mechanisms to ensure proper growth, stability, and avoidance of devastating interpersonal, intertribal, interclan, and now international conflict.

5. Springboarding off 2, is all altruism beneficial? For instance, if a husband has a wife and kids or a nation state has resources - if the husband decides to allocate 50% of his resources to another woman versus his progency and wife being the first priority FOLLOWED by some limited altruism - will that result in societal betterment? Or should altruism be somewhat limited as per the discussion above regarding the possible beneficial aspect of regulating interpersonal behavior (emphasis not on INTRApersonal behavior or what we do for our own selves and with our own selves).

Also, what of the practical aspects of religious zeal often, in history resulting in mass "altruism" like the Ghazi brigades in Shah Amanullah's time who rendered numerous "altruistic" self sacrifices when a particular stimulus arose such that the single actions of those people rendered an independent Afghanistan at that time?

Basically, the paper defines altruism in a particular way - number of stickers shared.

So the measure of "altruism" that they decide to allocate really has no impact on actual real life atruistic practice.... its a surrogate that is an inanimate object/resource that is disconnected from any true altruistic outcome.

6. Reemphasizing religious literacy I discussed above... Islam and the Prophetic message have already handled this issue and answered your criticism generations ago.

The hadith literature noted the disconnect between the definition the authors defined as "religiosity" as the true "spirit of the religion"



And even delineates further that within the "religious" category, a sliver of those that define themselves as such are actually "scripturally observant"

[QUOTE] My ummah will be divided into 73 sects...

or the famous hadith of the prostitute that slaked the dehydrated dog's thirst with water from her shoe being saved.

The latter shows once again that the definition of religiosity that the authors decided to apply in no way correlates with the more important measures of 1. Religious literacy and 2. Religious literacy coupled with religiosity (possibly in the manner defined by the authors).

In summary, you are a poor poor analyst without much ability or introspection with respect to analyzing scientific literature in a meaningful way.

This Damir person can't even read scientific papers. He just gets off by reading headlines of newspapers affirming his own beliefs and prejudices.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

[QUOTE=Shamlawar Khurasani;778830][QUOTE=BarakzaiAbdali;778829]Did you read the actual primary study?

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/...15)01167-7.pdf

A few things to consider.

1. The comparator group called "Not religious" is not defined. That is, no where in the paper does it define "Not religious" as Dawkins level atheist. It

2. Notice figure 2. They refer, in the 3 dimensional scatter plot, to religiosity.

What is the measure of "religiosity?" How is it defined in each of these subgroups. We are not given any reference that defines this term except that religiosity, according to the results section encompasses: 1. Frequency of religious practice 2. Household spirituality 3. the vague category of "overall religiousness"

We have no information as to what, say within the Christian and Islamic subgroups "frequency of religious practice" exactly means. For instance, would sadaqah and/or zakat which fall under "religious practice" count? Or is it the Peeza wakth Lmeenz guy that hangs out at the mosque 5 times a day because that is his social structure? Its an incomplete measure of religiosity if "frequency of religious practice" is measured by the number of times one attends a mosque vs the other practices/acts which are considered equally valid "frequencies of religious practice."

For instance, a Muslim that does not give the zakah is not actually fulfilling the totality of his faith - and within the Muslim subgroup, though a 5 times a day prayer may see himself or herself as "religious" he or she may not be religious by the gold standard of the religion itself.

In fact, one of the jokes about the Afghan Russo Conflict was that everyone, the Royalists, Communists, and Mujahideen used to all put down their guns for a few minutes to go do their prayer and then start shooting at eachother again.

3. Religious literacy is no where measured or taken into account in the univariate analysis.

For instance, George W Bush views himself as "religious." He might have answered the survey questions accordingly. But if one compares his level of literacy with say that of Pope Francis or Francis Collins or the Dean at Harvard seminary - would their definitions of "religiosity" and what defines accordance with the textual definitions in the religions be considered in this definition?

So the point one makes is that if the study seeks to compare Christians or Muslims to the "Not religious" Category are they comparing scripturally literate Muslims and Christians who are familar with the details of scriptural instruction?

Would say, Jimmy Swaggart, the 1980s missionary caught up in sexual scandals, who answered the questions under the three categories be deemed as "religiously observant?"

4. Also as an interpsonal harm issue... that result is actually the most interesting out of the whole paper. Interpersonal relationships and perception of actions in a society are those around which laws and customs are crafted right?

So in a sense, religious codification of laws regulating interpersonal behavior may very well be either a marker of ethnic/social/anthropoligical history or it may be a perception of social justice and injustice.

Basically, one might surmise that a biologically suitable way forward in line with regulating human behavior for the betterment of society led the development of religious thought processes within man to regulate the level of interpersonal "harm." And that this may be more in line with a biological viable society.

I mean its not lost on epidemiologists that the current situation in very secularized parts of Europe has resulted in plummeting birth rates far below the 2.4 births per household needed to maintain a steady state stable society. This is a very relevant case in Russia that has led the government to reward women to bare more children.

In this same way, human behavior challenging the biological norms in a secular fashion may sound A-OK in a philosophical sense - but the reality is that humans may have evolved these mechanisms to ensure proper growth, stability, and avoidance of devastating interpersonal, intertribal, interclan, and now international conflict.

5. Springboarding off 2, is all altruism beneficial? For instance, if a husband has a wife and kids or a nation state has resources - if the husband decides to allocate 50% of his resources to another woman versus his progency and wife being the first priority FOLLOWED by some limited altruism - will that result in societal betterment? Or should altruism be somewhat limited as per the discussion above regarding the possible beneficial aspect of regulating interpersonal behavior (emphasis not on INTRApersonal behavior or what we do for our own selves and with our own selves).

Also, what of the practical aspects of religious zeal often, in history resulting in mass "altruism" like the Ghazi brigades in Shah Amanullah's time who rendered numerous "altruistic" self sacrifices when a particular stimulus arose such that the single actions of those people rendered an independent Afghanistan at that time?

Basically, the paper defines altruism in a particular way - number of stickers shared.

So the measure of "altruism" that they decide to allocate really has no impact on actual real life atruistic practice.... its a surrogate that is an inanimate object/resource that is disconnected from any true altruistic outcome.

6. Reemphasizing religious literacy I discussed above... Islam and the Prophetic message have already handled this issue and answered your criticism generations ago.

The hadith literature noted the disconnect between the definition the authors defined as "religiosity" as the true "spirit of the religion"



And even delineates further that within the "religious" category, a sliver of those that define themselves as such are actually "scripturally observant"

My ummah will be divided into 73 sects...


This Damir person can't even read scientific papers. He just gets off by reading headlines of newspapers affirming his own beliefs and prejudices.

Its an interesting paper - but as you said, it requires analysis. Studies as well done as the PROMISE trial etc all have their critics and analysts of methodology.

If he had actually read the work he might have realized the strengths/short comings of the paper.

In a way what is interesting is that the paper might actually recognize more of an inherent "tribal, historical rivalry" approach to shoring up resources inherent in human beings vs a multicultural approach.

For example, religious Americans are currently concerned about the "war on Christmas" its a way of black mailing businesses into incorporating Christianity into their salesmanship in an increasingly diverse economy to maintain white ango saxon christian superiority that they feel is threatened.

The news about Starbucks today is an example of that.

But a well read theological Christian would note that the birthdate of Christ as defined by what trees bloomed fruit and when the shephards are out to the field in the Bible don't align with the Romanized "Christmas" celebration that was incorporated. (as a side note Russians celebrate Christmas in January). A theological student would also note that the American Puritans banned Christmas celebrations.

That being said, those that would answer the survey questions and publicly attend Church every Sunday like Rick Perry, W Bush etc would align with the "war on Christmas" group that want to maintain White Anglo dominance through that narrative.

This is despite the fact that Perry sent a very likely innocent man to death (Christopher Todd Willingham) a few years back to not go up against the death penalty in an election year.

My point is that religiosity as defined by the author may just be a surrogate for identifying the Rick Perrys of the world who use religion in the tribal/nationalistic sense of maintaining meme based dominance but not, say the Roman Catholic anti war nun, Megan Rice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Rice

Who cites biblical passages and is literate in her faith.

Regarding the posters analytical capabilities, I am truly astounded at the abject retardedness of the people here. I have never seen such a collection of very very very dumb people all in one place in such a long time. Its like a pilgramage site for the inept and the idiotic.

[Sarbani]

It makes sense for free thinkers to be more generous and tolerant than indoctrinated children. Not surprised.

[Manzareh]

One second this Damir guy says he is Agnostic, the next he reads an article about atheists that he is fond of now he's an Atheist. Have you noticed how mentality unstable and inconsistent these types are.. Remember Soldat Amir with his 101 personalitys, Badlun caught multiple times lying and changing his storys, all these people are bi-polar or something.

Also Atheist people dont give F all to people, they are selfish by nature, holding on to whatever they can for the only life they will ever live. Religious people are the most active in humanitarian work. Fact

[Damir9000]

One second this Damir guy says he is Agnostic, the next he reads an article about atheists that he is fond of now he's an Atheist. Have you noticed how mentality unstable and inconsistent these types are.. Remember Soldat Amir with his 101 personalitys, Badlun caught multiple times lying and changing his storys, all these people are bi-polar or something.

Also Atheist people dont give F all to people, they are selfish by nature, holding on to whatever they can for the only life they will ever live. Religious people are the most active in humanitarian work. Fact

I can be both agnostic & an atheist.
They do not contradict each other.

Atheism: deals with what someone believes about God.

Agnosticism: deals with what someone knows


I am an Atheist because:
I don't belong to any religion or believe in God.

I am Agnostic because:
I don't have knowledge for the existence of God.


Atheism isn't a belief system or philosophy.
Not believing in your fairy tale crap isn't a belief system.
Most Atheist that i know subscribe to Humanism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

No, I am not mentally unstable.
However, you seem to possess a very rabid personality & you are an incredibly ignorant dumbass.

[Manzareh]

I can be both agnostic & an atheist.
They do not contradict each other.

Atheism: deals with what someone believes about God.

Agnosticism: deals with what someone knows


I am an Atheist because:
I don't belong to any religion or believe in God.

I am Agnostic because:
I don't have knowledge for the existence of God.


Atheism isn't a belief system or philosophy.
Not believing in your fairy tale crap isn't a belief system.
Most Atheist that i know subscribe to Humanism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

No, I am not mentally unstable.
However, you seem to possess a very rabid personality & you are an incredibly ignorant dumbass.

You don't need to run to Wikipedia for everything in life. So spare your bull**** references. Agnostic atheist or whatever word you want to subscribe to makes no difference to your confused split personality. All the agnostics I know believe there is a god but dot know who or what to believe in. Atheists I know don't believe in God at all, I'm sure that's the same with a huge amount of people to say the least. Then again I don't blame you, your confused ****s:

Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

So what happened? A belief that there is no God drastically changed into 'hold on a sec...there has to be a God' LOL no either you people have been doubting yourselves or have come to terms with your flawed arguments, why else would it change over time. Looks like my bi-polar claim against you really isn't just a thought..Thats the first thing that will come up if you type it into Google btw.

[DaZahroJaam.]

Damir, if you don't know something, how can you be sure that you don't believe in it?? atheism is not about some lazy ass not having any clue about religion, it's about a conclusion one reaches after alot of debate with one's self and others.

[DaZahroJaam.]

in general, alot of factors affect the way the belief system of a child works. children don't understand their environments or religion enough to base their generosity or "tolerance" for anything on religious terms.

[Damir9000]

You don't need to run to Wikipedia for everything in life. So spare your bull**** references. Agnostic atheist or whatever word you want to subscribe to makes no difference to your confused split personality. All the agnostics I know believe there is a god but dot know who or what to believe in. Atheists I know don't believe in God at all, I'm sure that's the same with a huge amount of people to say the least. Then again I don't blame you, your confused ****s:



So what happened? A belief that there is no God drastically changed into 'hold on a sec...there has to be a God' LOL no either you people have been doubting yourselves or have come to terms with your flawed arguments, why else would it change over time. Looks like my bi-polar claim against you really isn't just a thought..Thats the first thing that will come up if you type it into Google btw.

You again show how much of a retard you are.
What the hell are you talking about?

Why are you obsessed with me being an agnostic, atheist or agnostic atheist?


Here are the definition on google

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnostic: 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.


I don't care about friends. They can believe & think what they want.
The general consensus is agnostics are atheists.
Because knowing and believing aren't the same things.

Believing in a God or Knowing & not knowing if there is a God arent the same thing.

If it makes it easier for you; I am an Atheist. happy?


You do realize this thread is dedicated to the Article & not me?

[Damir9000]

Damir, if you don't know something, how can you be sure that you don't believe in it?? atheism is not about some lazy ass not having any clue about religion, it's about a conclusion one reaches after alot of debate with one's self and others.

Like i said, Knowing and believing are two different concepts.

I am an atheist because I don't believe in Odin, Allah, the Trinity, Yaweh, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra or my own nameless God etc...

And I don't know if God of the Universe exists or not. There is no evidence for his existence or non-existence.


" if you don't know something, how can you be sure that you don't believe in it?"
I am sure that I don't believe in it because I don't subscribe to it.

How do you know you don't believe in Vishnu or Zeus without knowing if they truly exist or not?
You accepted Islam and denied the rest without fully researching all religions.

well, yes some lazy ass not belonging to any religion or believing in God can be an Atheist.
Having debates aren't necessary.
If I raise my child without teaching him about God or religion & he remains completely ignorant on the subject. He will be an Atheist.



Also, It is possible to disprove Allah or Vishnu by analyzing their texts. If the texts are man made then they are just fictional characters.

But it is very difficult to disprove the existence of the God of the Universe.

[Manzareh]

Atheism: deals with what someone believes about God.

Then the very next post:

Atheist: a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

You see, you don't even know what the hell you are talking about let alone trying to grasp what others are talking about. Straight contradiction. Once you've figured out what you believe in then come back and debate. For now your just proving this neither here neither there inconsistent philosophy(s) of yours. Case closed.

[DaZahroJaam.]

Like i said, Knowing and believing are two different concepts.

I am an atheist because I don't believe in Odin, Allah, the Trinity, Yaweh, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra or my own nameless God etc...

And I don't know if God of the Universe exists or not. There is no evidence for his existence or non-existence.


" if you don't know something, how can you be sure that you don't believe in it?"
I am sure that I don't believe in it because I don't subscribe to it.

How do you know you don't believe in Vishnu or Zeus without knowing if they truly exist or not?
You accepted Islam and denied the rest without fully researching all religions.

well, yes some lazy ass not belonging to any religion or believing in God can be an Atheist.
Having debates aren't necessary.
If I raise my child without teaching him about God or religion & he remains completely ignorant on the subject. He will be an Atheist.



Also, It is possible to disprove Allah or Vishnu by analyzing their texts. If the texts are man made then they are just fictional characters.

But it is very difficult to disprove the existence of the God of the Universe.

How ever so profound. However, there are some points that I must address. For instance, one can not redefine the principles of logic. Therefore, statements such as "Knowing and believing are two different concepts.", some up to utter nonsense, simply because, you don't get to decide that.

"If I raise my child without teaching him about God or religion & he remains completely ignorant on the subject. He will be an Atheist." No, he will grow up to be an ignorant because, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Your child didn't reach that conclusion himself, you shoved him to it. That is not the definition of faith whether you raise a religious or none religious child.

[Damir9000]

Then the very next post:



You see, you don't even know what the hell you are talking about let alone trying to grasp what others are talking about. Straight contradiction. Once you've figured out what you believe in then come back and debate. For now your just proving this neither here neither there inconsistent philosophy(s) of yours. Case closed.

That First quote is not a definition of Atheism. It's an explanation of what Atheism relates to...someone's belief.

The second quote was the definition of the word "Atheist" from google.

There is no contradiction. You're just too damn stupid.

[Damir9000]

How ever so profound. However, there are some points that I must address. For instance, one can not redefine the principles of logic. Therefore, statements such as "Knowing and believing are two different concepts.", some up to utter nonsense, simply because, you don't get to decide that.

"If I raise my child without teaching him about God or religion & he remains completely ignorant on the subject. He will be an Atheist." No, he will grow up to be an ignorant because, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Your child didn't reach that conclusion himself, you shoved him to it. That is not the definition of faith whether you raise a religious or none religious child.

I didn't make this definition or reasoning. I learned it from a respectable person well versed in the subject.
Religious people often fail to understand the difference because they made up their own logic.
I also did the same when I was a "believer". I skewed logic and reality to rationalize Allah
because as a child I was constantly reminded of God & to believe in him.


let me ask you this:

Do you know if Vishnu exists? why?

Do you believe in Vishnu? why?


Yes my child will be ignorant in the subject. No, I didn't shove anything into him, that's what a religious person does.

Being ignorant, smart or educated doesn't have anything to do with Atheism.
It's simply about not belonging to a religion & believing in a God.
Atheism isn't a philosophy or belief system.
Not belonging to a religion usually makes you an Atheist by default.