We're in the 21st century, and the vast majority of us still believe in an utterly and obviously fictional creator deity. Plenty of people, even in developed countries with decent educational systems, still believe in ghosts or magic (e.g. voodoo). And I–an atheist and a skeptic–am told I need to respect these patently false beliefs as cultural traditions.

Fuck that. They're bad cultural traditions, undeserving of respect. Child-proofing society for these intellectually stunted people doesn't help them; it is in fact a disservice to them to pretend it's okay to go through life believing these things. We should demand that people contend with reality on a factual basis by the time they reach adulthood (even earlier, if I'm being completely honest). We shouldn't be coddling people who profess beliefs that are demonstrably false, simply because their feelings might get hurt.

  • Flyswat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    611·
    1 year ago

    He made the claim that these beliefs are demonstrably false. We are waiting for the demonstration.

    Also being atheist IS taking a position, making a positive claim that God does not exist. Agnosticism is neutral, not taking a stance.

    • 𝖒𝖆𝖋@szmer.info
      63·
      1 year ago

      There are a few proofs against existence of god. Ineffectiveness of prayer. Impossibility of miracles under controlled conditions. Biological nature of human cognition which precludes life after death.

      • Flyswat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        312·
        1 year ago

        Science disagrees with you:

        Summarising scientific experiments conducted with children across the globe, Professor Barrett illustrates the ways human beings have come to develop complex belief systems about God’s omniscience, the afterlife, and the immortality of deities. He shows how the science of childhood religiosity reveals, across humanity, a “Natural Religion,” the organization of those beliefs that humans gravitate to organically, and how it underlies all of the major world religions, uniting them under one common source.

        https://www.harvard.com/book/born_believers_the_science_of_childrens_religious_belief/

        • felbane@lemmy.ml
          101·
          1 year ago

          Science disagrees with you

          Let me just correct that part real quick:

          Professor of theology writes book claiming children are born religious because imagination exists

          That's not science, friend. That's a guy trying to earn some residual passive income.

          • Flyswat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            26·
            1 year ago

            Justin L. Barrett (born 1971) is an American experimental psychologist, Founder and President of Blueprint 1543, a nonprofit organization. He formerly was the Director of the Thrive Center for Human Development in Pasadena, California, Thrive Professor of Developmental Science, and Professor of Psychology at Fuller Graduate School of Psychology. He previously was a senior researcher and director of the Centre for Anthropology and Mind at the Institute for Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology at the University of Oxford.

            Sorry you feel he is not sciency enough.

            You talk as if you have read the research and understood the experiments he did over 3 years in numerous mainly non-religious countries on children who were not in contact with a religious discourse. The conclusion is that they innately inclined towards believing in a higher being. Which means that NO, children are not born atheists.

            Which part of the research do you disagree with? I'm eager to read your paper and assess your qualifications.

            • Cypher@lemmy.world
              42·
              1 year ago

              mainly non-religious countries on children who were not in contact with a religious discourse.

              Ahh yes all those children he studied whom obviously grew up in a vacuum and were never exposed to the concept of a deity, through common language phrases and cultural beliefs.

              To conduct this experiment with untainted data would likely involve placing children into an environment with no outside exposure and carefully controlled interactions with restrictions on language use which would arguably be unethical.