Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
We only know of a single instance where life has emerged, is not remotely the same as claiming we know life has only emerged a single time.
Is your English really this poor? Perhaps I owe you an apology, and you're not being dishonest?
Now that's funny. So theists love expending the mental energy it takes to "Harmonise two (contradictory) statements".
I must remember that one, seriously thanks for that belly laugh.
It's still a contradiction to claim to have "no doubt" about something that you also claim is "undiscoverable" and "unobtainable" though, "harmonised" or not.
I could put you out of your misery of course, but I was / am curious how far you'll argue a point that is so demonstrably irrational. I'm remembering your hilarious claim the bible forbade slavery, and your months of refusing to involve any biblical texts but one that made no mention of slavery, in order to exclude any / all texts that specifically mentioned and endorsed it.
You are funny John.
Statements are not contradictory if they can harmonize, obviously. The question is why do atheists seek for contradictions first rather than harmony. The brain naturally seeks to make sense of the world, so perhaps I'm wrong and energy is actually being put in so as to turn the world into nonsense
Because not being able to maintain consistency is the mark of a crackpot, or a liar.
The answer is because imagining contradictions is a good way to protect your beliefs. It's dangerous to have your opponents view make sense. It's safer to turn rabbits into ducks, and insist they are ducks.
However, your statements do NOT harmonize. They are contradictive. If they harmonized, even I would have recognized that harmony. However, I have read and re-read those statements several times, and even with your failed attempt:
...I still see contradictive statements. If you were to harmonize them, you would only need to remove one word. I'll leave it to you to figure it out. And if you cannot, then go back to Reading Comprehension 101.
Perhaps you can explain when a mother catches her child reading the labels on a cereal box at 3½ years old, then begins teaching her child how to read using the Bible. However, that same 3½ year old child also can see the contradictive nature of the Bible. Thus, the child is instantly an atheist because the child finds the Bible so contradictive in comparison to how that child actually perceives the natural world.
Please explain how a child 3½ years old can have enough, I guess you would have to call it intelligence, intelligence to instantly recognize the contradictive nature of the Bible.
Please explain how that same child, as they grow up hearing those contradictive Bible stories, can have questions about those Bible stories that no one can answer. And they still have not been, and cannot be, answered even today.
Or, when answers are given, they do nothing but make your god look even more evil, wicked, mean, and nasty, until it becomes an even more horrifying and terrifying monster to ever haunt humanity in all of history.
Thus, the ultimate question: Can a person be born with an innate talent to instantly recognize contradictive and irrational statements? Such as the entirety of the Bible?
rmfr
I'm more impressed about the child's ability to read scripture at the age of 3.5, than anything else.
But to answer your question, most children are able to detect when outcomes contradict expectations, such as violation of gender roles.
@ Breezy
I saw what you did there. Tsk tsk johnny. You will be in the naughty corner if you keep chucking pinkish fish around the place again.
"most children are able to detect when outcomes contradict expectations, such as violation of gender roles."
Nonsense, bigotries like that are learned behaviours, indoctrinated by puritanical bigots.
No.
Yes. They are. They are taught to children by their elders. They are behaviors forced onto children by the Religious Absolutist bigots, which includes Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc. However, it can have the exact opposite effect. My father, although an atheist, was also perhaps one of the worst bigots I have ever had to live with. He may not have bought into the "Aryan" bullshit of Hitler and the current Neo-Nazis, but he did believe that if a person was not Caucasian, then they were literally an inferior species that only deserved to be enslaved. I loved my father to death, but I could not hold to his bigotry. Some of my bestest friends have been black and Native Americans. I even had a DNA test done to satisfy my damned sister because she would not quit pestering me to have one done to find if we are truly Highlander. Guess what? Testing both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA 86% of my DNA comes from Scotland and Ireland (Highlander). Another 11% comes from Norse man. The remaining 3% comes from central Europe (France, Germany). Damn, I was actually kind of hoping some would have been from Africa. Just to show my dad's bigotry was similar to Hitler's. Hoping my father hated blacks so much because he had some black blood in him and kind of knew it. Oh well. I am as caucasian as I can get.
My father's bigotry, and the bigotry of you Religious Absolutists, had the diametrically opposite effect on me. And I still am. I am as unbigoted as one can get. However, the bigotry I do have is only directed against those who are bigots. So, in a way I am a bigot. But I am a good bigot. You on the other is an evil, wicked, mean, and nasty bigot.
rmfr
From the man who claims he never disagrees with people.
Bigotry is learned not innate. Children notice when people are different but unless they're taught to discriminate they won't care.
My grandson was 4 whe my wife and I were watching The Birdcage with Robin Williams and Nathan Lane, a gay couple running a nightclub with drag acts.
At the end during the big musical scene, he took one look at Gene Hackman in a white ball gown and declared "dem are not ladies".
Now of course he'd learned what he thought ladies should look like. However I doubt his concept of gender was yet sophisticated enough to encompass gender identity and trans gender. He's certainly have had no concept of sexual orientation. Children learn how to react to such things from the adults around them and other children.
No child is born with an innate sense of what gender identity means and should look like. This is learned and reinforced as they grow and experience the world.
My grandson wasn't making a prejudiced remark against transgender or cross dressing, he stated a fact he'd learned exactly as if a small child points to a fat man in a public place and loudly says look how fat that man is.
I never mentioned bigotry; but perhaps that's simply the best word you have for describing such behavior.
Most of the time, children learn behaviors from their peers. For example, prior to the age of eleven children prefer playing with those of the same gender (Blakemore et al., 2009). Only once romantic interest begin to emerge to they mingle more with the opposite gender (Rudman & Glick, 2008). Children are known to naturally form very rigid ideas of the world, which becomes even more rigid in the presence of their peers. In these same-gender islands kids learn what we call gender stereotypical behavior. They learn boy codes and girl codes. Boys learn to be physically aggressive, and girls learn to be emotionally expressive (Rose & Rudolph, 2006).
Unsurprisingly, kids reject other kids who behave in ways characteristic of the opposite gender (Basow, 2006). They think girls should not play video games or behave aggressively (Funk & Buchman, 1996). When women that were tomboys in childhood are interviewed, one of the major influences reported that motivated them to act more feminine was their peers (B. L. Morgan, 1998). Interestingly, boys often face stronger rejection than girls do, when they behave in nontraditional ways (Bussey & Bandura, 2004).
When one psychologist asked children whether they would like to be friends with a child who violated traditional stereotypes. Children tended to dislike boys who wore girl's clothes or hairstyle, played with dolls or wanted to be a nurse as opposed to a firefighter. Girls were judged less harshly for role violations. Lastly, when a boy plays with girls he tends to be unpopular with other boys (Colwell & Lindsey, 2005).
I also remember reading a study in which toddlers were shown photographs in which a person was violating gender roles. The toddlers stared significantly longer when there was a role violation as opposed to when there wasn't. Signifying they are aware of gender roles at a very early age. I couldn't find the source for that one. I'll update the references when I do.
References:
Basow, S. A. (2006). Gender role and gender identity development. In J. Worell & C. D. Goodheart (Eds.), Handbook of girls’ and women’s psychological health: Gender and well-being across the life span (pp. 242–251). New York: Oxford University Press.
Blakemore, J. E.O., Berenbaum, S.A., & Liben, L. S. (2009). Gender development. New York: Psychology Press.
Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (2004). Social cognitive theory of gender development and functioning. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.). The psychology of gender (2nd ed., pp. 92–120). New York: Guilford.
Colwell, M. J., & Lindsey, E. W. (2005). Preschool children’s pretend and physical play and sex of play partner: Connections to peer competence. Sex Roles, 52, 497–509.
Morgan, B. L. (1998). A three-generational study of tomboy behavior. Sex Roles, 39, 787–800
Funk, J. B., & Buchman, D. D. (1996). Children’s perceptions of gender differences in social approval for playing electronic games. Sex Roles, 35, 219–231.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations. New York: Guilford.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98–131
Wed, 08/22/2018 - 09:03 ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ "most children are able to detect when outcomes contradict expectations, such as violation of gender roles."
Thu, 08/23/2018 - 11:49 Sheldon "Nonsense, bigotries like that are learned behaviours,"
Thu, 08/23/2018 - 12:33 ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ "No."
Fri, 08/24/2018 - 01:43 Sheldon "Bigotry is learned not innate."
Fri, 08/24/2018 - 07:38 ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ "Most of the time, children learn behaviors"
As I said from the start ref (Thu, 08/23/2018 - 11:49 ), and you denied ref (Thu, 08/23/2018 - 12:33 ) above?
---------------------------------------------------------------
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ "I never mentioned bigotry"
Who claimed you did?
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ "Signifying they are aware of gender roles at a very early age."
Signifying they are aware at an early age of stereotypical gender roles they have learned, and again as I already stated. Unless you're claiming your citations conclude they are born with that ability? My grandson knew at 4 years old that Gene Hackman in a white dress and platinum wig didn't fit the physical gender stereotype he had learned represents a woman.
I go back to your original claim.
"Wed, 08/22/2018 - 09:03 ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ "most children are able to detect when outcomes contradict expectations, such as violation of gender roles."
If you had said from the outset "most children are able to detect when outcomes contradict *learned* (my edit) expectations, such as violations of *learned (my edit) gender roles."
Then I'd have agreed, but your sentence implied a) that the ability was innate, and by inference b) that gender roles can be violated in some innate sense, rather than simply not reflecting the stereotypes we have learned to expect. Our instincts may reflect evolutionary advantages inherited through our DNA, but there is no moral reason these must always be indulged.
A child raised to accept that being gay or having a gender identity different to one's biological identity, harmed no one, and was perfectly natural, would not view gay or trans gender people any differently from anyone else. As your own citations show rather puzzlingly, so why you offer citations confirming my claim and refuting your (NO) contradiction of it I'm not sure?
The real question is why in the 21st century, given the tragic consequences of not doing this, we teach children anything else?
1. I'm assuming you understood what the "no" was referencing, given that you specifically omitted four words from your sentence: "...indoctrinated by puritanical bigots." No, these behaviors are mostly learned from peers.
2. There's your magical word again, implied. There's no reason for me to have modified my sentence with the word learned. How many expectations do you think we are born with, so as to think my sentence implied one such innate example?
"I'm assuming you understood what the "no" was referencing,"
Really. does the study of psychology encourage such cryptically vague one word responses, that expect guesses from the reader as to what they are and are not directed at?
"There's your magical word again, implied."
This from the man who thinks a one word response of NO can be read as specific to parts of the post it responded to, but not others. You are funny John, bless.
Breezy "There's no reason for me to have modified my sentence with the word learned."
Well you think people can guess what your one word (no) response was intended to disagree with and what not, so I find your reasoning here highly suspect. However I'll not labour the point, lets just take another look now you have offered the calcification your claim "didn't need".
-------------------------------------------------
Breezy "most children are able to detect when outcomes contradict expectations, such as violation of gender roles."
So we agree that children *learn to expect stereotypical gender roles, thus when you say "violations of gender roles" you mean violations of those stereotypical gender roles, as if hey are learned, and gender roles can be whatever we want them to be, then there can be no real "violation" of gender roles", only a violation of the gender stereotypes we learn as children.
Glad we're on the same page then. So again the only real question is why any decent person or society wouldn't want to stop such unnecessary suffering by teaching children not to discriminate.
Prior to your comment, you had both the one word response of no and my explanation of peer influence. No guesses were required on your part, only that you listen and think before you respond; and that you do not omit portions of your sentences.
You use learning in a very narrow an uninteresting way; you view learning as the behavioral consequence of being taught. No one is being taught these expectations. Children are active thinkers that seek information from the environment; they make sense of this information by organizing and manipulating it. Children create gender schemas as they engage with the world. Learning in these examples are primarily a cognitive function not a social one.
Good luck trying to teach children to not form such expectations.
No.
—— VS. ——
The best word to describe what is done by Religious Absolutist bigots such as yourself. And their peers are usually put through that indoctrination process that utilizes mental rape, emotional molestation, and psychological terrorism children into becoming "good little Christians." Hell, if necessary, you Religious Absolutists will even resort to physical violence, which can also include rape and molestation. The ultimate statement of all Religious Absolutists: "If you do not believe in what WE believe or do as WE say, then you are CONDEMNED to die and BURN in Hell FOREVER!"
Bullshit! Lies. I was playing with girls just as much as I was playing with boys. I guess even at an early age I subconsciously recognized the equality of both male and female. Unlike you misogynistic Religious Absolutist bigots.
Only those that fail to resist the destructive and malevolent and insidious indoctrination process of the Religious Absolutists, which seems to explain you.
By and large, the rest of what you wrote is ONLY partially true. However, it is NOT absolute as you wrote and quote-mined. Thus, all your cited sources are mined quotes, just to fit your religious absolutes. Only you Religious Absolutists deal with absolutes. And it seems as if, just from the statements you cited, that everyone of those you cited are also Religious Absolutists. Otherwise, quit quote mining.
For me, EVERYTHING is just a bland shade of grey. All things are equal. Human = Human = Human = Human, regardless of how a person wants to be or be viewed: gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, straight, whatever. Human = Human = Human = Human. Only you Religious Absolutists do not see this. All you see is <chosen religion> = Human; otherwise = animalistic godless heathens. Hate to break it to you, but you Religious Absolutists are also animalistic, regardless of what that faerie tale book says.
All humans are equal, except in the veiwpoint of those who still believe in religion and sky faeries (Religious Absolutists). They still require quite a bit more maturation. Only you religious bigots are of an inferior species known as Homo inscius. And as I view it, and I shall be the first to call it Absolutist also, any person who can believe in an irrational and barbaric and obsolete Bronze Age book of faerie tales is as immature as a childish, spoiled brat.
When I was a child, I wanted to be everything, except a doctor. For some reason, I just did not want to be in any kind of medical profession. I wanted to be a firefighter, a policeman, an astronaut, a geologist, an archaeologist, an astronomer, so many different things, I was confused until I joined the US Navy, had the accident, and was HUH(M) discharged. I then saw the lava fountains shooting some 100 meters into the air at Kilauea back in 1984, I then knew I wanted to become a volcanologist. I wanted to go to Hawai'i and study first hand an erupting volcano. I know, exceptionally dangerous, but I still think it would be so cool to see it first hand. To stand right beside the lava river and watch it flow. To get as close to the lava fountain as possible and watch it spew lava up into the air. Oh how I would have loved to have been there at Fissure Eight this past summer...
Anyway, whenever girls acted like tomboys, it made absolutely no difference in my outlook on them. Whenever boys acted like tamgirls (and yes, that is the official name we gave them some 5 to 5½ decades ago), it made absolutely no difference in my outlook on them. As said, all the damned bigotry you sorry-ass Religious Absolutists tried to force onto me had the diamterically opposite effect. And I cannot be happier that it did. Whenever I see any of you Religious Absolutists speak about your bigotry, all I can see is a wannabe Hitler/Stalin/Mao.
BTW: Yes, my father was an absolute bigot. But he NEVER tried to force it onto me. Only you sorry-assed Religious Absolutists.
And I guess some select few severely violates your expectations. For I had no expectations of outcomes. Why? How? Ever heard of Star Trek: The Original Series? Watch it some time. Think Critically (if you can) about what kind of effect it would have on a very young child watching and cogitating its issues and the interactions of its people as compared to that damned viral plague known as religion and beliefs in imaginary sky faeries.
rmfr
Edit: fixed typos of mind racing ahead of typing capabilities
"Bull*** Lies. I was playing with girls just as much as I was playing with boys. I guess even at an early age I subconsciously recognized the equality of both male and female."
Well, you also claimed to have read and comprehended Scripture by the age of 3.5; which either means your memory is faulty, or you are an outliar in cognitive abilities.
Well you should know. You certainly do some spectacular mental cartwheels to protect yours.
"Because not being able to maintain consistency is the mark of a crackpot, or a liar."
Or both.
Atheism is completely irrelevant to this point, and your obsession with blaming everything you fail to grasp on atheism and atheists is very telling. You made a claim that implied a contradiction. No one needed to look for it, it was manifest, as you claimed you *DON'T doubt something exists, despite then claiming it is "unobtainable and undiscoverable".
"The brain naturally seeks to make sense of the world,"
Obviously, though it demonstrably fails a lot of the time, and plugs those gaps with beliefs that are false.
"perhaps I'm wrong and energy is actually being put in so as to turn the world into nonsense"
Are you really a student of psychology? Of course people can invest all their energies into beliefs that are in fact false and therefore nonsensical? It starts with a subjective desire to believe something, rather than a critical open minded approach to all claims and beliefs.
ME "Tell me John do you accept the world is round not flat is an objective fact? Or are you unable to obtain it?"
Breezy "As long as it is understood that objectivity exists only as a philosophical concept, and that the best we can do label certain aspects of our subjective experience as objective, then yes, the world being round is an objective fact"
How can something be objectively true, but only as a subjective philosophical concept. So you don't believe the world is round independent of any human opinion then? What shape do you think it is / becomes when there are no humans to perceive it?
1. Because objectivity is itself a philosophical concept.
2. How can I possibly think the world is round, independent of any human opinion? The very act of thinking it makes it a human opinion.
3. Correct, true objectivity must be what remains when there are no humans to perceive it; so how can I possibly know the answer to that question? I only know what it is like when we do perceive it.
"1. Because objectivity is itself a philosophical concept."
Did you miss the word subjective in my sentence or is this another example of your relentless mendacity? Yes, objectivity is a philosophical concept "of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination."
Is that what you're claiming, only that would be a contradiction of what you have been posting? Then again the concept of contradictions isn't not something you seem entirely au fait with.
Breezy "2. How can I possibly think the world is round, independent of any human opinion? "
Well what shape do you think it was, or will change to, when humans were or are not around to perceive it?
"The very act of thinking it makes it a human opinion."
Are all opinions equally valid then? Is there no method that we can use to objectively validate or invalidate them?
"Correct, true objectivity must be what remains when there are no humans to perceive it; "
So it's not an objective fact that the world is round as long as there are humans to perceive it as such?
This is a rare glimpse of the theistic thought process.
I didn't miss it, but why would I say "subjective philosophical concept" if I didn't even say it in the original quote?
Moreover, if this is a rare glimpse of the theistic thought process, then it is a glimpse into how it is superior to the atheistic thought process.
"if this is a rare glimpse of the theistic thought process, then it is a glimpse into how it is superior to the atheistic thought process."
Only you could assert it is a superior thought process to claim to have no doubt there are objective truths, but also that we can't obtain or discover them. and also claim this doesn't imply any contradiction.
Breezy "why would I say "subjective philosophical concept"
You have already claimed all human concepts are subjective, and claimed it repeatedly? Are you claiming philosophy is a method for discovering and obtaining what you have claimed is unobtainable and undiscoverable, objective facts. Or are you simultaneously claiming the human philosophical concept of objective truth is also subjective, and objective, and subjective and objective and, well you get the idea?
Lets take a look at some more of your "superior" theistic reasoning.
"I'll always claim that what we know is that life has **only emerged a single time (duh); and I'll never doubt that there is life out there."
So it's only emerged a single time, except for all the other times you don't doubt it has happened? Priceless. We only now of a single instance where life has emerged, but we don't know it has "only emerged a single time" Is your command of English really this poor, or are trying to avoid admitting you made a basic error to save face?
"Only you could assert it is a superior thought process to claim to have no doubt there are objective truths, but also that we can't obtain or discover them. and also claim this doesn't imply any contradiction."
It really does actually. Also figure your thoughts out, because from what you just said, including or excluding the word subjective when modifying philosophy doesn't make a difference. Should I have said round ball, instad of just ball?
Round ball, instead of just ball?
Yes, because some balls ain't round.
rmfr
Pages