It is my contention that Atheism defined for this purpose herein as the "absence of belief in gods" is the natural state of humankind, as I presume it is for all natural life on the planet. A baby is born into this world pure and unadulterated, and only becomes a Theist, if it becomes a Theist at all, through either family indoctrination, or as a result of the effects of social osmosis from the wider community or peer group or through some other earthly, natural cause in contradistinction to some supernatural cause.

If the above is the case then couldn't it be asserted that Atheists are Natural, and Theists Unnatural. We are Pure, and Unadulterated in that respect whereas Theists are Impure?!

Views: 321

Replies to This Discussion

"Natural" describes all that exists.

"Supernatural" describes all that purportedly exists outside of nature- to date, nothing of the kind has been discovered to exist. Belief in the supernatural is natural. It, the belief, exists- albeit for purely naturalistic reasons.

"Unnatural" is a despective label that betrays a gross lack of understanding of the word "natural".

If it exists, it's natural.

Therefore, theists, confused as they may be, are purely natural.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but I disagree. I would argue that for most people, "supernatural" refers to some force (god/ghost/etc.) acting outside or "above" the realm of nature. I think "non-natural" or "unnatural" would refer to something that is a misunderstanding a lack of knowledge about what is in nature without a claim to a higher power.

For example, let's say a child looks up at the night sky and sees the moon. He wonders what the moon is made of, and decides it's made of Swiss cheese. Is this a supernatural claim? I don't think most people would say so, unless the child thought the Swiss cheese was put there by god, for example. It simply reflects the child's lack of knowledge of how the natural world works. I would say it's natural for him to think that (which I think was what you were saying), but the claim is non-natural, not supernatural.

One could say the same thing with scientific hypotheses. If a hypothesis is proven false, I don't think we'd say it's a "supernatural" hypothesis, it's just one that was proven to be untrue in the natural world: non-natural.
The child's claim, though erroneous, is decidedly natural. There is nothing that exists that is not natural. Supernatural belief is natural, it exists. It can be observed and studied. The supernatural thing believed in, however, does not exist. Theists exist. Theists are natural.

The question itself reveals a lack of understanding of Naturalism.
I did not conflate "Unnatural" with Supernatural as you may be doing here. I did not say that Theists are Supernatural, but that they have become impure or unnatural as opposed to the unadulterated character or nature of a person, animal, or plant who is in its natural state lives and dies without gods.

Notwithstanding the good points advanced by IAmTheBlog above, my assertion was merely that in the absence of evidence to the contrary the entirety of the biomass on the planet is in its natural state atheistic.

Babies are the pure unpolluted glass of atheist water in this sense of the word natural, and only become Theists after having had all manner of pollutants added to them.

If I get your meaning, you are saying that everything is Natural, and nothing can be unnatural, therefore no matter what a water bottling plant added to their bottled water it would still be fine to label it as Pure, and Natural because the benzine, ecoli, paint and used condoms settled at the bottom were all derived from things which exist.
Yes Larry Carter Center, I should drop the un-natural. I drop it because if I were to continue to say that humans who have learned to become religious are unnatural when compared to the natural state of Atheism then the same could be said for anything else which is learned and that encompasses an awful lot of things.

I would not want to be deemed unnatural for having learned how to read sheet music or writing poems, or anything else one may come to learn or think as the brain fills up with information.
The christian Theologian, and founder of the Methodist movement John Wesley agrees with my topmost assertion that we are all natural born Atheists.

"After all that has been so plausibly written concerning "the innate idea of God;" after all that have been said of its being common to all men, in all ages and nations; it does not appear, that man has naturally any more idea of God that any of the beasts of the field; he has no knowledge of God at all; no fear of God at all; neither is God in all his thoughts. Whatever change may afterwards be wrought, (whether by the grace of God or by his own reflection, or by education.) he is, by nature, a mere Atheist." -John Wesley-Sermon 95.
Atheists are natural, not Theists. This is because Atheists are consistent with the nature of the being form and Theists are not (see logical disproof of Biblical god concept below):

The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.

It involves only three definitions, each of which is self-evident. One is of a being, a second is of worship and the third is of a Biblical type god.

The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality. Of course Descartes defined himself as this type of entity on the basis of obviousness. Very exactly, in that we have no way to test whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external reality we cannot know whether they do. Additionally, however, our experiences suggest that when we dream or hallucinate we internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality. Accordingly, especially with empirical suggestions that we sometimes internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality, we cannot rule out that it is our nature to do so all of the time. Therefore, our definition of a being is self-evident.

The definition of worship is veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist. In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence this definition of worship is entirely consistent with the actual meaning of the word.

The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical god concept.

We shall proceed with a logical technique that involves reductio ad absurdum. That is, we shall first assume that a Biblical type god exists and from this using only logic arrive at a self-contradictory (absurd) proposition. This will leave only that a Biblical type god does not exist and the disproof will be complete. As such, assume that a Biblical type god exists.

By definition it holds that it is right for others to worship it. By the definition of worship they must acknowledge its existence to do so. Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence. However, they are beings. By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions. Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible. At the same time, by definition it is perfect. In this it does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible. Consequently, we have both that the Biblical type god does and does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible.

This is the absurdity. Our only alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed. Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived. Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect. That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate. In this, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.

Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.

As set forth at the beginning there is no vindictiveness in this writing. It is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good. As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey that our ability to know an external reality (if there is one) is scientifically precluded by our perceiver nature and, in this, meaningful development as the entities we are may only be realized in the form of internal rewards. That is, it may only be realized through decisions that challenge the self in goodness of motive. Only these afford fulfillment in effort independently from certainty of result.

John Jubinsky
MA–Mathematics, CPA
Sorry you didn't understand it Fred. I simply said that as perceivers we cannot know whether there is an external reality so how can we be expected to whorship one.
We all go for how things feel but that does not mean we can self-honestly say they are true. Would a being that was perfect in goodness expect us to? If so it would be asking us to be dishonest with ourselves.
I think as much as anything people are theists because they cannot deal with the prospect of death. Theism offers them everlastig life. A weak wimpy god would not be able to guarantee it. Christianity offers everlasting life without having to do much work for it. (One can commit all kinds of 'sins' and still be saved.)

It is still the case that in order to be a theist one must go against the scientific nature of his or her being form. That is, a being is only a perceiver and, as such, cannot know absolutely whether its perceptions validly reflect an external reality. In this, it would be unnatural for it to worship an external reality.

I think that if theists realized that everlasting life might occur naturally (without the worship of a diety), say through reincarnation, they would not be so inclined to be theists.
Having enjoyed reading the discussion on this topic and not wanting to drown it with the response I found myself writing, may I share my thoughts on "Are Theists Natural" with a response in my blog.

Your input would be most welcome.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


Latest Activity

Chris commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
22 minutes ago
Joan Denoo commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
1 hour ago
Daniel W commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Daniel W commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
1 hour ago
Tom Brock replied to jlaz's discussion Is "God" possible?
4 hours ago
Mel Quay commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
4 hours ago
Tom Brock posted a status
"Technology is the new religion and Artificial Intelligence may be our new god. Leave your epitaph for humanity at"
4 hours ago
Thomas Murray commented on Loren Miller's group Quotations – Momentous, Memorable, Meaningful
5 hours ago

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service