Azdgari: Let me ask you this: Is it meaningful to describe something as atheist if it cannot affirm that this is the case? An animal cannot tell us whether it has a religious belief or not, so how can we describe it as definitely not having one, whether it is a lack of belief or actual disbelief? Same thing with a newborn human. For that matter, same thing with my desk, or my laptop, or my cell phone, or my keys. For something to be atheist, not-theist, it must possess the ability to choose to be theist. Newborns do not have that ability.
Couple of questions. to all of you above.
1) "newborns have the lack of concept of gods", I have to agree to that but how would you explain almost every culture in history of mankind, there is some sort of religious back ground.(theism) where did all these come from?
Is it just human nature? then are you acting against human nature?(atheism)
Example--- "Male is attracted to female", vice versa for the purpose of reproduction.(human nature)
Is not culture passed on from generation to generation?
The mere fact that cultures have a religious backgrounds does not prove whether it is or is not human nature to have one. It just proves that those culture have religious backgrounds.
And as far as acting against human nature goes...most people are perfectly willing to kill and eat other animals for sustenance. Does that mean that vegetarianism is against human nature?
2) When I was little I believed in both Santa Claus and god, as I grew older, I found out only one of them was real, how did I found out? First I was told, second I read the words of God (bible), lastly, I experience God. Just like what it says in the Bible.
By reading you guys' posts, I can tell there was no experience with God,
But how would you explain millions of believers' experience, healing, touching, comforting.
Most atheists do indeed have religious experience. A large number were devout believers. So it's flat-out wrong to say that they had no experience with God.
As for the rest of it, that's purely subjective. You were primed by people who already believed, and that priming was supported by the words you read which were purported to be by God. Your personal experiences with God are just that, personal, not something that can be objectively experienced by anyone. It is the same with other believers; the personal, subjective experiences of a million or a billion people do not add up to anything more than the personal, subjective experiences of those people. They certainly do not add up to something objective, unless it is something that can be demonstrated objectively.
Example---"phantom Pain" for some amputees.
I know there are theories about it but, is there physical evidence?
Are you going to tell them those are delusional, fake, just because you didn't experienced it?
A brain cell connection, once established, never truly goes away. So the conduits that conveyed sensations (including pain) from a limb to the brain are not going to suddenly go away just because that limb is no longer attached, and occasionally the electrical impulses of the brain will fire off that set of nerves. That's why amputees suffer phantom limb syndrome and phantom pain.
How are you so sure God doesn't exist? Is there evidence?
Are religions just delusions? Fakes?
Then that's one heck a lot of delusions.
When believers can objectively prove that God exists, then they'll have a case for demanding that atheists prove that God doesn't exist.
Doesn't matter how many people believe in something if it's wrong. See below.
Percentage of theist 88% world wide, and 95% in America (I just google it)
Fallacy of the majority - just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it correct.
Most people, in 1490, believed the Earth was flat. Yet it would be ridiculous to say that the Earth actually was flat before it was proved to be round. It was always round regardless of what people believed.