Hamp Forms: Fill & Download for Free

Question as asked by the OP: Where do atheists believe the baby´s soul come from?This may be a difficult concept to grasp, but here goes:Atheists are people who have recognized that they sincerely have no belief in any god or gods.Having no such belief, atheists therefore consider the doctrines of various religions to be no more than the recorded folklore that has grown up around the belief in one of these mythic entities. This folklore (religion) is totally irrelevant to one who has no belief in god(s).Certain concepts, such as soul, sin, and afterlife, are purely religious in nature and therefore have no meaning to an atheist.So, your question asks a person who has no reason to believe that a baby, or anyone else, has a soul to explain where a baby’ soul comes from.The answer, strictly from an atheist’s point of view, is, “What soul?”You are, of course, free to believe that babies have souls, but it is foolish to ask someone who has no reason to think souls exist, where a baby might get one.

Why-do-atheists-say-that-they-will-believe-in-God-only-if-God-shows-himself?They don't say that. I am almost 80 and a life-long atheist, and I have never, ever said that. What I do say is this:If you can show me credible, objective, verifiable evidence that the god of your religion exists, I shall immediately stop being an atheist and join your religion.So far, no one has even come close.Is God subject to their orders?As an atheist, I have no belief in any god or gods. To make such a ridiculous demand, that some god must show itself to me, would require some sort of belief that some god might exist. I don't have that belief. Or some sort of hope or desire that some god might exist. I don't have that hope or that desire. While it may be difficult for you to understand, I am quite happy living in a godless world. I wouldn't change it.About your question:Because you have a belief in some god, you live in a world in which you are certain that god exists. When an atheist says, as we mostly do, "The burden of proof is on you. Show me convincing evidence that your god exists," of course you can't. Since you have no credible, objective, verifiable evidence that your god exists, but you know your god does exist (because of your belief), you hear the request for evidence as a demand that your god show himself to the atheist. It's not.Atheists consider god to be a human invention, and therefore the invented god cannot possibly show itself. Even believers know their god doesn't show himself, so they construct representations of their gods to put in their religious places so that they will have something to look at. Lots of statuary. Lots of religious symbols. No actual god(s).About your belief:It's fine with me, even though I'm an atheist, for you to believe in whatever god it is that you believe in. I personally think you are wrong and that this is a waste of your time and treasure, but it's your life and your decision. (I also think that those who choose to play golf on Sunday morning are wasting their time and treasure, but it's their choice. I would never do it.)However, when you try to bring the god of your belief into my godless world, you are trespassing. I do not ask your god to show itself, because I think that has an extremely low probability. I simply say that unless you have convincing evidence to support your assertions about your god, you'll have to stop talking about it or move on. I have no interest in unsupported assertions about your belief. As I said above, I am quite happy living in a godless world.You, on the other hand, appear to be disturbed that anyone doesn't share your beliefs. Too bad.

This started out as a comment on Barry Hampe' s answer, but it started getting long...I agree with Barry Hampe' s idea about "differences", rather than "skirmishes.I don't really see much "skirmishing" going on, more of a "dance of low loss non-combat idealogical comparrisons", no where else on Quora is there evidence of quite as much diplomatic presentation of ideas, even in the 'murica section and the "gun" groups, and "mexican stand-offs" as there is in the theist/atheist quarter.To answer the question now; I don't think there should be an effort to control the levels of potential "flammability", as if you do, censure will surely rear its ugly head, and the idea of open discussion becomes both fruitless and pointless, if it has to be heavily filtered.The second problem is quite simply, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?No one is qualified to sit as an "absolute overseer" on the subject matter, because that is what the subject matter is all about...One half of the group believes in the exsistence of an absolute overseer, and the other doesn't. Theoretically neither "side", if "sides" exsist, would accept someone to oversee the content and behaviour, if they were not either theist or atheist. So you would have to have at least one of each, who are by definition, of the subject matter, fundamentally opposed to the others "side".You can see where this is headed can't you?The best way to deal with the "stepping out of bounds of the BNBR policy" of anyone getting into and enjoying a skirmish, is to do what usually happens,report and eject.You can't prune a rose bush by chopping it off at the base, or smothering it with a great big cloth, you have to delicately trim off the dead buds one by one, to create a harmonious and homogeonous effect.Please correct my spelling if you wish, as I have no spell checker, I'm not on my home machine.