Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

We all know that there are far more theists then atheists in the world. Is this circumstantial or is theism a more natural state then atheism?

Imagine it this way; if you could re-roll the human dice from the beginning, would you end up with a theistic world, like we have now, every time?

Would you say there are more atheist now than ever?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Would you say there are more atheist now than ever?

I don't know. It seems to be that, but is it just because we are beginning to look?

Every time with a re-roll, no. Most times, yes.

It relates to evolution. Minds focused on hunting and gathering instead of existential crises were more likely to survive. But as we developed cognitive awareness, our minds turned to our origins, the origins and explanations for natural phenomena and the like. Those who reconciled them with a deity (or deities in the plural early on) could get back to the business of surviving. The earliest "scientists" were probably killed off because their curiosity distracted them too much.

There's also strong sociological and biological evidence that taking part in shared activities (early religious rituals and rites) increases cooperativeness. So being a part of a coherent community and doing similar things helped ensure survival as well. Religion provided the outlet for those advantages.

Basically, belief is programmed into us because it helped us survive...and we're not so far removed from that time as a species that natural selection has been able to do anything about it.

...that's it in a nutshell. There's other factors but those are major ones.

Originally posted by Digi
Every time with a re-roll, no. Most times, yes.

It relates to evolution. Minds focused on hunting and gathering instead of existential crises were more likely to survive. But as we developed cognitive awareness, our minds turned to our origins, the origins and explanations for natural phenomena and the like. Those who reconciled them with a deity (or deities in the plural early on) could get back to the business of surviving. The earliest "scientists" were probably killed off because their curiosity distracted them too much.

There's also strong sociological and biological evidence that taking part in shared activities (early religious rituals and rites) increases cooperativeness. So being a part of a coherent community and doing similar things helped ensure survival as well. Religion provided the outlet for those advantages.

...that's it in a nutshell. There's other factors but those are major ones.

So, If theism has an evolutionary advantage over atheism in respect to animals (like humans) who live in a corroborative society, then, why do animals like Baboons, who have a very complicated corroborative society, seem to not have a Baboon equivalent to theism?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, If theism has an evolutionary advantage over atheism in respect to animals (like humans) who live in a corroborative society, then, why do animals like Baboons, who have a very complicated corroborative society, seem to not have a Baboon equivalent to theism?

Well, they may not be at the level of awareness needed to question such aspects of their existence. That's one explanation. I'm not enough of a biologist to say though, really. You may have a point.

But I said "most" in my initial statement because a species doesn't need to develop a tendency for belief to survive and cooperate. It just helps. So it's not an inevitability but a likelihood. We're dealing in probabilities, not certainties.

Originally posted by Digi
Well, they may not be at the level of awareness needed to question such aspects of their existence. That's one explanation. I'm not enough of a biologist to say though, really. You may have a point.

But I said "most" in my initial statement because a species doesn't need to develop a tendency for belief to survive and cooperate. It just helps. So it's not an inevitability but a likelihood. We're dealing in probabilities, not certainties.

I'm not predispose to an answer, to any of the questions.

There is also the possibility that Baboons believe in a god, but we have no way to decipher that information from our observations. In other words, we don't speak their language.

You seem to be hinting (however avoiding) the concussion that theism could be a byproduct of the human brain (and it's increased size in humans). This is a logical concussion, but it has the pit fall of saying that atheism is a more primitive state of mind. However, there is a difference between natural atheism and modern atheism. The Baboons maybe natural atheistic, in that they have never conceived of the idea of a god, where as most atheists (human) have been presented with the idea of a god, at some time, or in some way, and have rejected it.

I think it might be relevant to distinguish between theism as "I have inherited this belief about the relationship between things I see" and an actual philosophical belief in theism.

So, for instance, a farmer in early Mesopotamia who was taught as a child that his actions toward a God are what cause the rivers to flood and water his crops is not a theist in the way atheists are. Similarly, someone born in Soviet Russia who is taught Lamarkian evolution as the way crops work can't really be considered an atheist in any philosophical sense. In these cases, these people only hold theistic or atheistic beliefs in regard to specific mechanisms of how events in their life are explained. There is no awareness of alternative or real semblance of a coherent belief system or position toward the divine.

I'd argue the vast majority of people fall into this category. They simply are theists because the explanations they have for events in their life were theistic ones adopted from their culture. The vast majority of atheists in Western nations do not come from atheist homes, and so, it is likely they have at least a marginally more coherent position of the divine (similarly, theists from atheistic cultures would have the same). In fact, imho it is a minority of theists in our culture who would actually meet some threshold for being considered a philosophical theist, rather than just being a theist as a consequence of what they were taught as a child.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We all know that there are far more theists then atheists in the world. Is this circumstantial or is theism a more natural state then atheism?

Imagine it this way; if you could re-roll the human dice from the beginning, would you end up with a theistic world, like we have now, every time?

I'll vote for theistic world. Theism offers 'answers' to questions humans sought after from the beginning that are yet (if ever) to be answered for sure, such as :''why am I here'',''what happens when I die''.

This is why philosophy has been so important to man, as well as religion.
I believe majority (if not all) major civilisations had Gods and prayed to them.

Interesting question though...

inimalist

Kind of like that guy who goes to church every Sunday, because that is what he is supposed to do. Also, they would answer the question "do they believe in god?" with "yes" because that is what they are supposed to do. Otherwise they never give it another thought. This person would be a theist, but would function like an atheist?

Ah, functional atheists, sure. Those who espouse a religion, but for all practical purposes lead entirely secular lives. "Census Christians" my family used to call them.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I'll vote for theistic world. Theism offers 'answers' to questions humans sought after from the beginning that are yet (if ever) to be answered for sure, such as :''why am I here'',''what happens when I die''.

This is why philosophy has been so important to man, as well as religion.
I believe majority (if not all) major civilisations had Gods and prayed to them.

Interesting question though...

More than just religion offers answers to those questions. It's just hard for many to imagine something outside religion offering it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
inimalist

Kind of like that guy who goes to church every Sunday, because that is what he is supposed to do. Also, they would answer the question "do they believe in god?" with "yes" because that is what they are supposed to do. Otherwise they never give it another thought. This person would be a theist, but would function like an atheist?

ya, pretty much. we would call them "theists", but they are hardly equatable to atheists in a theist dominant society.

What brings one to atheism? What is the deciding factor to most atheist share?


Due to the internet generation its possible that there are more atheist now than ever before, ratio wise.

Also possible that people tend to go with the crowd.

100th monkey effect.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What brings one to atheism? What is the deciding factor to most atheist share?


Due to the internet generation its possible that there are more atheist now than ever before, ratio wise.

Also possible that people tend to go with the crowd.

100th monkey effect.

So, if atheism is popular, you could end up with atheists that are functionally theists?

For example, a young man declares his independence by saying he is an atheist. Fast forward 20 years, and he is taking his kids to church every Sunday, because that is what he is supposed to do.

Nah that example would just be weird. What I'm saying is that theist numbers maintain the higher ratio solely because more people believe in it than those who do not.


Lots of college students I've come to know lean toward atheism and agnosticism though. Its a little weird and seems somewhat trendy.


Thats why I'm wondering what atheist share as the deciding factor into becoming 100% atheist

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if atheism is popular, you could end up with atheists that are functionally theists?

For example, a young man declares his independence by saying he is an atheist. Fast forward 20 years, and he is taking his kids to church every Sunday, because that is what he is supposed to do.

This doesn't quite work as a reversal of a functional atheist. The ritual of going to church isn't part of doesn't make the functional atheist really a theist so it doesn't make the function theist really a theist either.

FA = act theist, think atheist
FT = act atheist, think theist

The issue with having a Functional Theist is that the Functional Atheist, as I understand it, isn't hiding what he believe or acting a part he's just never thought much about the idea of atheism. Atheism would have to be extremely dominant to get a Functional Theist who had little or no exposure to the idea of theism.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What is the deciding factor to most atheist share?

Why would there be such a thing?

To answer the thread, Dawkins addressed it nicely.

To paraphrase: it's remarkable that most people grow up to have the same religion as their parents, isn't it? And they know it's right, too.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think it might be relevant to distinguish between theism as "I have inherited this belief about the relationship between things I see" and an actual philosophical belief in theism.

So, for instance, a farmer in early Mesopotamia who was taught as a child that his actions toward a God are what cause the rivers to flood and water his crops is not a theist in the way atheists are. Similarly, someone born in Soviet Russia who is taught Lamarkian evolution as the way crops work can't really be considered an atheist in any philosophical sense. In these cases, these people only hold theistic or atheistic beliefs in regard to specific mechanisms of how events in their life are explained. There is no awareness of alternative or real semblance of a coherent belief system or position toward the divine.

I'd argue the vast majority of people fall into this category. They simply are theists because the explanations they have for events in their life were theistic ones adopted from their culture. The vast majority of atheists in Western nations do not come from atheist homes, and so, it is likely they have at least a marginally more coherent position of the divine (similarly, theists from atheistic cultures would have the same). In fact, imho it is a minority of theists in our culture who would actually meet some threshold for being considered a philosophical theist, rather than just being a theist as a consequence of what they were taught as a child.

In this day and age, however, it is hard to argue that anyone is theist or atheist without knowing the "whys" on a philosophical level. I would say the the majority from each know at least some of the philosophical arguments for and against their position.

What modern western theist has not heard or read that "evolution" is supposed to be the "bane" of most western creation beliefs?

What atheist has not heard or read the "what happened before the big bang and why did it happen?" arguments from the theists?

Originally posted by dadudemon
In this day and age, however, it is hard to argue that anyone is theist or atheist without knowing the "whys" on a philosophical level. I would say the the majority from each know at least some of the philosophical arguments for and against their position.

What modern western theist has not heard or read that "evolution" is supposed to be the "bane" of most western creation beliefs?

What atheist has not heard or read the "what happened before the big bang and why did it happen?" arguments from the theists?

yes, but knowing memes that cover the most immediate challenges to one's faith isn't the same as having a nuanced stance on the divine, which I think is more in line with Shakey's OP.

I'd just be willing to bet, in a largely theistic society, atheists will have a more nuanced position and many theists will have nothing approaching one, whereas conversely, in an atheistic society, this would be the opposite, as religious people would probably have a much better understanding of the divine. Its like how it is likely (in general of course) that converts to a religion would have a better understanding of the faith than those who were born into it.

I guess my issue is with using absolute numbers like this, the side that reflects popular culture will be artificially inflated by large numbers of people who believe simply because that is the answer they have been given. I'm not challenging their faith or trying to say they are less religious or less Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/whatever, just that, it takes more awareness and more of a nuanced position to be part of a group that is outside of the mainstream, in anything really (art/music/etc).

Originally posted by inimalist
Its like how it is likely (in general of course) that converts to a religion would have a better understanding of the faith than those who were born into it.

Compared to the less-active members? Yes. Compared to the active ones? Almost always no...from my experience.

Originally posted by inimalist
I guess my issue is with using absolute numbers like this, the side that reflects popular culture will be artificially inflated by large numbers of people who believe simply because that is the answer they have been given. I'm not challenging their faith or trying to say they are less religious or less Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/whatever, just that, it takes more awareness and more of a nuanced position to be part of a group that is outside of the mainstream, in anything really (art/music/etc).

And my point is: their faith and reasons for their faith are constantly challenged in this modern world. That wasn't the case 100 years ago (probably closer to 150...but 50 years ago suffices for my point).


I'm just saying that it is very hard to say people are not aware of even the nuanced arguments you speak of.

We could probably do an unofficial check with those around us. I know every single person in the room I am working with, right now, are quite aware of the nuances of theistic and atheistic arguments. I know this because we've had them.

I think you don't realize how severely stupid/stubborn humans really are about their religions. 313*


*You know that's not true. I know you know. It's just humor about how bullheaded theists can be about their religion.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This doesn't quite work as a reversal of a functional atheist. The ritual of going to church isn't part of doesn't make the functional atheist really a theist so it doesn't make the function theist really a theist either.

That thought did orrcur to me while I was writting my earler quote, but for arguments sake...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
FA = act theist, think atheist
FT = act atheist, think theist

The issue with having a Functional Theist is that the Functional Atheist, as I understand it, isn't hiding what he believe or acting a part he's just never thought much about the idea of atheism. Atheism would have to be extremely dominant to get a Functional Theist who had little or no exposure to the idea of theism.

So, you would agree that Atheism is a more natural state then theism?

Then how did we end up with a generally theistic world? Even more so, why would we have a world that is generally theistic, but comprised of mostly atheists?

Originally posted by Mairuzu
What brings one to atheism? What is the deciding factor to most atheist share?

There's no one answer here.

Originally posted by Mairuzu
Due to the internet generation its possible that there are more atheist now than ever before, ratio wise.

Also possible that people tend to go with the crowd.

100th monkey effect.

Oh dear. You're misapplying that 100th monkey term, which originated from a failed hypothesis about unified fields affecting actions continents away from one another. "Monkey see, monkey do" might be another simian trope we can invoke that is more applicable here.

You also encounter a horse & cart problem with your logic. Are we following a trend, or is the trend a response to the information being presented to young adults? It's probably impossible to extricate those to say which one it is for sure.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you would agree that Atheism is a more natural state then theism?

Then how did we end up with a generally theistic world? Even more so, why would we have a world that is generally theistic, but comprised of mostly atheists?

Not sure why you're trying to establish which is more "natural." What do you even mean by that?

I still think you're ignoring the biology here, though. Even if we're not born into belief, there's strong evidence to suggest we have a tendency toward it.

Originally posted by Digi
There's no one answer here.



Oh dear. You're misapplying that 100th monkey term, which originated from a failed hypothesis about unified fields affecting actions continents away from one another. "Monkey see, monkey do" might be another simian trope we can invoke that is more applicable here.

You also encounter a horse & cart problem with your logic. Are we following a trend, or is the trend a response to the information being presented to young adults? It's probably impossible to extricate those to say which one it is for sure.



Not sure why you're trying to establish which is more "natural." What do you even mean by that?

I still think you're ignoring the biology here, though. Even if we're not born into belief, there's strong evidence to suggest we have a tendency toward it.

Lets use nature as our standard.

So, would you say that theism is more "natural" then atheism?

Then, why isn't theism more apparent in the rest of nature?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Compared to the less-active members? Yes. Compared to the active ones? Almost always no...from my experience.



And my point is: their faith and reasons for their faith are constantly challenged in this modern world. That wasn't the case 100 years ago (probably closer to 150...but 50 years ago suffices for my point).


I'm just saying that it is very hard to say people are not aware of even the nuanced arguments you speak of.

We could probably do an unofficial check with those around us. I know every single person in the room I am working with, right now, are quite aware of the nuances of theistic and atheistic arguments. I know this because we've had them.

I think you don't realize how severely stupid/stubborn humans really are about their religions. 313*


*You know that's not true. I know you know. It's just humor about how bullheaded theists can be about their religion.

I think the difference here might just be our cultural context... Me being from Canada and you from a more religious part of America.

Though, I'm not so much talking about having faith challenged so much as having an integral idea about what their faith means. Maybe I'm not explaining it well, but like, it would be the difference between someone who lurks around livescience.com or something like that versus someone who has a proper understanding of scientific methods. Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say most of the atheists I've talked to are overly enlightened or anything like that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Lets use nature as our standard.

So, would you say that theism is more "natural" then atheism?

Then, why isn't theism more apparent in the rest of nature?

its not so much that "theism" is more natural, but that there would be a benefit to those animals that saw some form of agency in random events, then, with the human capacity for language and very abstract knowledge, that bias is exploited.

Originally posted by inimalist
its not so much that "theism" is more natural, but that there would be a benefit to those animals that saw some form of agency in random events, then, with the human capacity for language and very abstract knowledge, that bias is exploited.

What about the question I asked?

Why isn't theism more apparent in the rest of nature?

Originally posted by inimalist
I think the difference here might just be our cultural context... Me being from Canada and you from a more religious part of America.

Though, I'm not so much talking about having faith challenged so much as having an integral idea about what their faith means. Maybe I'm not explaining it well, but like, it would be the difference between someone who lurks around livescience.com or something like that versus someone who has a proper understanding of scientific methods. Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say most of the atheists I've talked to are overly enlightened or anything like that. Challenging, justifying or changing your spiritual stance as an adult sounds like learning a second language as an adult, and in doing so gaining a perhaps greater understanding of the grammar, nuances and evolution of that language than the native speakers often possess themselves.

Because some humans are romantics. The world is a harsh and ugly place. But the beauty that glimmers through shows hope.

Religion is Cultism = Ugly.
Atheism is What You See Is What You Get = Boring.
Theism is Imagination = Awesome.

But when theism claims that "god did it" at every turn that seems to be opposite to encouraging people to imagine what the real mechanics of the universe were.

I think its not about romanticism and imagination, but human desperation, isolation and the terror of death.

Also its a pretty handy way of manipulating en masse.

I thought Theism is just the notion of dieties. Or a force. No correct answer just theories.

Woops my bad.

Is there such thing as a faith where its members just believe in a entity or force out there undiscovered and shun all the books, rules, regulations and superstitions of a particular institution?

I used to think Theosophy was that. But discovered it was just another cult.
Neo Satanism looked like a bunch of performing realists who just wanted to bring down organised Religion, but they turned out to be a bunch of NeoNazis.

I'm not afraid of death being just being a corpse in the ground. I don't need people to tell me how to be a good person. But I have a big imagination and reckon there should be something more out there.

And I agree these institutions are mearly cults giving hope en masse.
Or tribal leaders creating perfect little soldiers for their cause.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about the question I asked?

Why isn't theism more apparent in the rest of nature?
1. It may be (though I doubt it), but we are hardly privy to other creatures' intimate thoughts (how the hell would I know what a silverback is contemplating when it be chillin' in the jungle?). Mostly they seemed concerned with understanding/negotiating the concrete world.

2. Because theism requires a certain level of abstract thinking / metaconsciousness which animals do not possess, at least not to a sufficient level. Often, a big stretch of cause-n-effect is involved.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about the question I asked?

Why isn't theism more apparent in the rest of nature?

because it requires a level of abstract concept formation that animals don't have.

they do see agency in random events though, as in, they will treat random noise in a bush as a predator, etc.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Because some humans are romantics. The world is a harsh and ugly place. But the beauty that glimmers through shows hope.

Religion is Cultism = Ugly.
Atheism is What You See Is What You Get = Boring.
Theism is Imagination = Awesome.

That's laughably narrow-sighted. I'd argue that seeing the world in this way, and seeing religion/non-religion in this way, is a profound lack of imagination.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about the question I asked?

Why isn't theism more apparent in the rest of nature?

We're going in circles. I had an answer to this a while back. Chances are, no one's at the cognitive level to need to rationalize the world around them in the manner that leads to religious thought.

Originally posted by Digi
Ah, functional atheists, sure. Those who espouse a religion, but for all practical purposes lead entirely secular lives. "Census Christians" my family used to call them.



More than just religion offers answers to those questions. It's just hard for many to imagine something outside religion offering it.

Such as what?

I already mentioned philosophy and religion - what else offers answers to these questions?

I'd say art, in some forms, provides or gives answers to these questions as well, perhaps in less absolute terms.

I also think sciences give answers to certain aspects of these questions, but only in as far as it can substantiate them. Which I personally find to be an advantage.

I do think that theism often gives answers that are very relatable, especially in ages (or in people) where there's little true understanding of the world around.

I guess I'd agree that, because of that, a shuffle would likely lead to some sorts of theism again. Whether it is necessarily as popular as it has gotten in our world, I don't know, I think another philosophical or spiritual non-theistic belief system with ambitions to convert and conquer could just as well dominate, like Abrahamic religions have in this world.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Such as what?

I already mentioned philosophy and religion - what else offers answers to these questions?

Philosophy is not religion so that would immediately prove his claim that things other than religion can answers such questions.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Philosophy is not religion so that would immediately prove his claim that things other than religion can answers such questions.

But, is religion philosophy?

Originally posted by inimalist
because it requires a level of abstract concept formation that animals don't have.

they do see agency in random events though, as in, they will treat random noise in a bush as a predator, etc.

So, theism is a product of a more advanced brain.


Digi

I know you answered already. I just wanted inimalist to answer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, theism is a product of a more advanced brain.


Digi

I know you answered already. I just wanted inimalist to answer.

Yes, but so is actively choosing atheism.

I think inimalist addressed the difference well in his initial post. Embracing the philosophy of theism or atheism is different from just being those things coincidentally.

Furthermore, with atheism, there's the complicating factor that it doesn't just mean actively believing that there is no god, but also the passive fact of not believing in God, for example cause you never thought about it or were not exposed to it.

I'm not sure whether it is that interesting to discuss animals being atheist, as they seem to be atheist in the same way a stone is atheist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But, is religion philosophy?

Often.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Often.

I say this cause I think one could possibly make a semantic argument that only philosophy answers the questions of "why am I here" and "what happens after I die" because we define everything that answers these questions as "philosophy".

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Such as what?

I already mentioned philosophy and religion - what else offers answers to these questions?

You do. Which then opens the door for a multitude of potential answers. In religion, while subjective interpretation remains a part of any practice, you're necessarily herded into 1-2 specific responses to the question of "Why are we here?" (and similar questions). To glorify God, to act according to his decrees, to live according to whatever precepts the religion or philosophy might have, etc. etc. But once I have the power to determine the answer, I'm no longer limited my a doctrine, or the need to work within it. It's freedom, the empowerment that comes with knowing you want to do what's right, that you want to have purpose and meaning, and that you are responsible for those things in your life. Frankly, it's one of the cooler aspects of being an atheist. That, and sleeping in on Sundays.

Also, the ultimate goal in religion is a form of happiness. Usually, but not always, in the form of heaven. So if we take that as the "why," it can be applied to secular lifestyles just as easily. You don't need to be religious to work toward the same "why" that religion presents us.

Also, from a nonreligious perspective this is a silly question in the first place. For someone who doesn't believe in God or the veracity of religions, to me, everyone comes up with their own meaning and purpose...religion has nothing to do with it. A person might hide behind the guise of religion, but it's really just a personal justification for their existence. In that sense, I don't see religious meaning as any different than non-religious meaning, because both are man-made and based on the individual.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Digi

I know you answered already. I just wanted inimalist to answer.

Ah. Apologies then.

Originally posted by Existere
Challenging, justifying or changing your spiritual stance as an adult sounds like learning a second language as an adult, and in doing so gaining a perhaps greater understanding of the grammar, nuances and evolution of that language than the native speakers often possess themselves.

ya, thats it exactly

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, theism is a product of a more advanced brain.

well, sort of. It is a product of the fact that we evolved from a species that was incredible at pattern detection and saw agency behind random events. The idea of theism itself, so, beyond just thinking that someone is causing natural events, but rather the idea that it is a specific person with authority who should be worshiped and stuff like that are going to be more a product of our linguistic capacity to categorize things and our social organization. It would be interesting to think if the earliest band societies of humans would be theists in the way we use the term modernly, or I suppose that is why we have terms like naturalism or whatever.

Certainly, no, I don't think it is a matter of an advanced brain alone and probably has a lot to do with our linguistic ability to name the agent we think is behind some natural phenomenon, whereas the worship and such likely arise as an extension of authority within these early societies.

Originally posted by inimalist
...
well, sort of. It is a product of the fact that we evolved from a species that was incredible at pattern detection and saw agency behind random events. The idea of theism itself, so, beyond just thinking that someone is causing natural events, but rather the idea that it is a specific person with authority who should be worshiped and stuff like that are going to be more a product of our linguistic capacity to categorize things and our social organization. It would be interesting to think if the earliest band societies of humans would be theists in the way we use the term modernly, or I suppose that is why we have terms like naturalism or whatever.

Certainly, no, I don't think it is a matter of an advanced brain alone and probably has a lot to do with our linguistic ability to name the agent we think is behind some natural phenomenon, whereas the worship and such likely arise as an extension of authority within these early societies.

To me, theism is not directly connected to worship. I believe this connection is more modern then the original concept of gods. In many ways, I think that god is a word that fills a space, much like dark in dark matter. We didn't know why the sun came up in the morning, so we said it was done by a god. I think that only later did the idea that we had to do something to help this god, came into being.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To me, theism is not directly connected to worship. I believe this connection is more modern then the original concept of gods. In many ways, I think that god is a word that fills a space, much like dark in dark matter. We didn't know why the sun came up in the morning, so we said it was done by a god. I think that only later did the idea that we had to do something to help this god, came into being.

sure, but the development of the idea of a God wouldn't have been done in a vacuum. sure, yes, it is likely that the first ideas of agency behind natural events didn't lead directly to worship and all that, the social organization of the time would provide clear benefits to leaders who claimed to be able to communicate with or call on the powers of that agent. This development likely was also happening throughout the human population in different ways, so it is possible in some cases you do see worship very early and in other cases not.

otherwise its semantics, though, I'm not sure if I would call simply seeing agency in nature as being theism so much as naturalism, and we know there are cultures who worshiped nature without ever personifying this agency.

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, but the development of the idea of a God wouldn't have been done in a vacuum. sure, yes, it is likely that the first ideas of agency behind natural events didn't lead directly to worship and all that, the social organization of the time would provide clear benefits to leaders who claimed to be able to communicate with or call on the powers of that agent. This development likely was also happening throughout the human population in different ways, so it is possible in some cases you do see worship very early and in other cases not.

otherwise its semantics, though, I'm not sure if I would call simply seeing agency in nature as being theism so much as naturalism, and we know there are cultures who worshiped nature without ever personifying this agency.

So, you draw a line between naturalism and theism. That sheds light on some of my difficulties in discussing this topic with people like yourself. I do not draw such a distinction. Also, I maybe a theist, but I do not worship a god.

Thanks for the discussion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I just wanted inimalist to answer. What am I, chopped liver?



Originally posted by Bardock42
But, is religion philosophy? I distinguish them this way:

Religion is a perspective of reverence which may or may not involve critical analysis.
Philosophy is an analytical perspective which may or may not involve reverence.

Originally posted by Mindship
What am I, chopped liver?






Originally posted by Mindship
1. It may be (though I doubt it), but we are hardly privy to other creatures' intimate thoughts (how the hell would I know what a silverback is contemplating when it be chillin' in the jungle?). Mostly they seemed concerned with understanding/negotiating the concrete world.

2. Because theism requires a certain level of abstract thinking / metaconsciousness which animals do not possess, at least not to a sufficient level. Often, a big stretch of cause-n-effect is involved.

1. We have no way of knowing. Is the shape of a termite mound a reflection of a suitable home for the colony, or a temple dedicated to a termite god? Would an alien race recognize theism within our culture?

2. But humans are animals.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. ... Would an alien race recognize theism within our culture? I often wonder if an alien race would recognize intelligence in our culture.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
2. But humans are animals. Don't make me facepalm you.

Originally posted by Mindship
I often wonder if an alien race would recognize intelligence in our culture.

Don't make me facepalm you.

So long, and thanks for all the fish...

I think we begin toward theism, as humans have the ability to be curious and imaginative. I think humans also need/or definitely want to know that the buck doesn't stop with us.

And I believe when theism turns into religion, that that is mainly faith working, by people who need too know more specifically WHAT is looking after them.

There might be something about what A types do different than B types, A types need to feel in control of their lives, so they might look more specifically - while B types may be okay in just knowing that "something" is up there, tying everything together in a way that makes sense to "It," although not to humans.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you draw a line between naturalism and theism. That sheds light on some of my difficulties in discussing this topic with people like yourself. I do not draw such a distinction. Also, I maybe a theist, but I do not worship a god.

Thanks for the discussion.

I actually don't think I've ever thought about that type of a distinction. I'd say naturalism is when you would believe the agency is nature itself or that nature can be an agent, whereas when a specific agent is involved, it becomes theism. So, as far as I understand it, something like Karma would be closer to a naturalistic belief rather than theistic...

That being said, I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to define yourself, this is obviously semantics

Originally posted by siriuswriter
I think we begin toward theism, as humans have the ability to be curious and imaginative. I think humans also need/or definitely want to know that the buck doesn't stop with us.

And I believe when theism turns into religion, that that is mainly faith working, by people who need too know more specifically WHAT is looking after them.

There might be something about what A types do different than B types, A types need to feel in control of their lives, so they might look more specifically - while B types may be okay in just knowing that "something" is up there, tying everything together in a way that makes sense to "It," although not to humans.

I think you might have a point if you are talking about people who seek certainty in a modern context and the reasons religious explanations might appeal to them, however, that sounds far too organized to explain the origins of theism. Especially with the nearly deistic idea at the end, the "it", sure, something that shows up in some ancient literature, but probably requires a concept of the divine initially. IE - I don't think deism can exist without first having some type of theism.

It seems like you are saying that a bunch of otherwise agnostic early humans sat down and were like "gee, I don't understand a lot of things, so let me come up with the best way to describe them", whereas I can't imagine there being that much thought behind it. I'd imagine it arose much more organically out of people's experiences rather than as some type of top-down thought process.

Originally posted by inimalist
I actually don't think I've ever thought about that type of a distinction. I'd say naturalism is when you would believe the agency is nature itself or that nature can be an agent, whereas when a specific agent is involved, it becomes theism. So, as far as I understand it, something like Karma would be closer to a naturalistic belief rather than theistic...

That being said, I'm certainly not trying to tell you how to define yourself, this is obviously semantics

Karma is directly connected to theism, if you are talking about Hinduism. Even in Buddhism, there are those who believe that Buddha was divine, and that would also count as theism.

PS I do not think you are trying to tell me how to define myself. I was simple using myself as tactic to illustrate that there are more then two answers, and those answers have their own problems.

To answer my own question: I believe that nether atheism or theism are natural. They are two sides of the same coin, and that coin is what is natural. That coin is something that I would call the Mystic Law, but that is only my opinion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, if atheism is popular, you could end up with atheists that are functionally theists?
I guess a functional theist would live unbound by religion, at least apparently, but constantly fear that his actions are going to condemn him...?

Originally posted by Digi
You do. Which then opens the door for a multitude of potential answers. In religion, while subjective interpretation remains a part of any practice, you're necessarily herded into 1-2 specific responses to the question of "Why are we here?" (and similar questions). To glorify God, to act according to his decrees, to live according to whatever precepts the religion or philosophy might have, etc. etc. But once I have the power to determine the answer, I'm no longer limited my a doctrine, or the need to work within it. It's freedom, the empowerment that comes with knowing you want to do what's right, that you want to have purpose and meaning, and that you are responsible for those things in your life. Frankly, it's one of the cooler aspects of being an atheist. That, and sleeping in on Sundays.

Also, the ultimate goal in religion is a form of happiness. Usually, but not always, in the form of heaven. So if we take that as the "why," it can be applied to secular lifestyles just as easily. You don't need to be religious to work toward the same "why" that religion presents us.

Also, from a nonreligious perspective this is a silly question in the first place. For someone who doesn't believe in God or the veracity of religions, to me, everyone comes up with their own meaning and purpose...religion has nothing to do with it. A person might hide behind the guise of religion, but it's really just a personal justification for their existence. In that sense, I don't see religious meaning as any different than non-religious meaning, because both are man-made and based on the individual.



Ah. Apologies then.


I am happy you are happy to be an atheist, but I've no idea what your point is....other than ''I am an atheist''. Please clarify.

I actually did get totally lost in the flow of that conversation, but I'll try from what I gathered to answer -

In case you were thinking Atheism offers answers to questions we have no answers to - it actually doesn't.
It speculates as much as philosophy and religion, except Atheistic speculation is based on ''probably nothing happens when we die'' which is unsatisfactory to majority of people, thus religion is more appealing.

THEREFORE

To answer Shaky's question - if we are to re-roll the dice, the world would most likely still be theistic., in my opinion.

I couldn't work out if you agree with this or not....

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am happy you are happy to be an atheist, but I've no idea what your point is....other than ''I am an atheist''. Please clarify.

I actually did get totally lost in the flow of that conversation, but I'll try from what I gathered to answer -

In case you were thinking Atheism offers answers to questions we have no answers to - it actually doesn't.
It speculates as much as philosophy and religion, except Atheistic speculation is based on ''probably nothing happens when we die'' which is unsatisfactory to majority of people, thus religion is more appealing.

THEREFORE

To answer Shaky's question - if we are to re-roll the dice, the world would most likely still be theistic., in my opinion.

I couldn't work out if you agree with this or not....

I see Digi's point.

His answer is "it's subjective and whatever the individual chooses the 'reason' to be". Such as, "Dedicating my life to PETA." Rather than, "God called me to dedicate my life to PETA."

And some even have an answer for the question on an afterlife: there isn't one.




The only problem I had with his post was the sleeping in on Sundays.

Why didn't you sleep in on Saturday? HEATHEN! BLASPHEMY!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see Digi's point.

His answer is "it's subjective and whatever the individual chooses the 'reason' to be". Such as, "Dedicating my life to PETA." Rather than, "God called me to dedicate my life to PETA."

And some even have an answer for the question on an afterlife: there isn't one.




The only problem I had with his post was the sleeping in on Sundays.

Why didn't you sleep in on Saturday? HEATHEN! BLASPHEMY!
I understand what he's saying, I just don't understand why he's saying it or how does that relate to what I was asking or rather what he was answering to me.


Recap:

Shaky: Imagine it this way; if you could re-roll the human dice from the beginning, would you end up with a theistic world, like we have now, every time?

Me: Theistic world. Religion and philosophy are important to men - It offers answers to which we do not have questions yet (if ever).

Digi: Other things offer answers not just religion.

Me: Which ones?

Digi: I am an atheist. I answer my own questions. (perhaps alluding to philosophy?)

Me: Maybe he means atheism offers answers - I don't believe so, because it speculates as much as philosophy and religion.


As for your point: ''And some even have an answer for the question on an afterlife: there isn't one.''

I already addressed that in saying that such view is not satisfactory for majority of people, thus religion was historically favoured and THEREFORE going back to what Shaky was ASKING, I believe the world would still be theistic.

A: Religion and philosophy offer answers to important questions.
B: Religion is not the only thing that answers important questions.
A: You are wrong!

Conversations on the internet are weird.

Originally posted by Digi
That's laughably narrow-sighted.

Yeah I was talking out of my ass. I already took the rant back.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A: Religion and philosophy offer answers to important questions.
B: Religion is not the only thing that answers important questions.
A: You are wrong!

Conversations on the internet are weird.

You're right about internet conversations being weird - especially when random person joins a conversation to comment for the sake of comment, usually adding nothing constructive or useful.

Makes a whole thing even weirder.

Originally posted by Mindship

I distinguish them this way:

Religion is a perspective of reverence which may or may not involve critical analysis.
Philosophy is an analytical perspective which may or may not involve reverence.


That is the worst definition ever. WORST! I want my money back!

Originally posted by Bardock42
That is the worst definition ever. WORST! I want my money back! Subtlety is not your strong point. What do you really think?

I was going to argue theism from an evolutionary point of view but ini already covered that. It's practical to have him around

Originally posted by Mindship
Subtlety is not your strong point. What do you really think?

It's pretty good, I think that's basically what them. I do think there's a vast overlap though.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Me: Maybe he means atheism offers answers - I don't believe so, because it speculates as much as philosophy and religion.

That's pretty specifically not what I said. You mentioned getting lost in the flow of my last post. I'd make sure you understand it before assuming a meaning to it that has nothing to do with the actual content. I offered three plausible means by which finding meaning and purpose doesn't need to involve religion.

Technically any worldview, or declaration of meaning and purpose, is a philosophy, so I can't say it doesn't include philosophical aspects, but I get the sense that you're using Philosophy with a capital 'P' instead of simply using it to describe each individual's worldview.

Originally posted by Digi
That's pretty specifically not what I said. You mentioned getting lost in the flow of my last post. I'd make sure you understand it before assuming a meaning to it that has nothing to do with the actual content. I offered three plausible means by which finding meaning and purpose doesn't need to involve religion.

Technically any worldview, or declaration of meaning and purpose, is a philosophy, so I can't say it doesn't include philosophical aspects, but I get the sense that you're using Philosophy with a capital 'P' instead of simply using it to describe each individual's worldview.

What do you mean?

Religion is also philosophy*. I'd say atheism is too, but as I mentioned it doesn't really offer a satisfactory answer.
You challenged my post which included both, religion and philosophy to tell me that there are other ways.

You mentioned several times in your post that you're an atheist who makes his own sort of world view and such.

Since I acknowledged philosophy in my original post, I failed to understand what other means offer answers.
You also said ''you do''. Well of course I do. Everyone initially makes their own sense. Philosophy didn't fall out of the sky, it developed.

I have my own philosophy of afterlife and reasons for being here to begin with but I didn't pull them out of thin air - it is heavily influenced by the religious and philosophical teachings of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and Christianity.




*There isn't really any meaning to my capitalisation, I just do it for some reason, even though it's not really correct. I refrained from it just now.

Digi are you referring to science? If so, isn't science just a more grounded philosophy?

That's an interesting point, Shaky...I never thought of science as a philosophy, but that's worth pondering about.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That's an interesting point, Shaky...I never thought of science as a philosophy, but that's worth pondering about.

I'm reading a book about string theory written by a mathematician, and I just get this image of a great teacher standing between gothic columns, while I'm reading. It could just be my imagination, but string theory reminds me of philosophy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It could just be my imagination, but string theory reminds me of philosophy. Well, currently there is no empirical grounding for it, yet, could it serve as a "life guide"?

In either event, it beats a p-brane philosophy.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That's an interesting point, Shaky...I never thought of science as a philosophy, but that's worth pondering about.

science, as in the collection of facts and theories that comprise scientific knowledge, is probably not a philosophy.

how such facts and theories are combined into narratives to explain natural phenomenon probably is, or at the very least, is influenced to a major degree by the philosophy one holds regarding the subject being studied.

the methods themselves, how to collect data, how to design experiments, what qualifies as good data or a proper research programme, is entirely philosophy. statistics in science are essentially a form of epistemology, and how to use and apply them to data depends entirely on your philosophical approach to data itself.

In its origins, natural science was classified as a philosophy because of this. It was a new philosophy about how to know things about the world around us. In modern times, philosophy has become (wrongly) associated with "I can just say my opinion", and therefore seems to be opposed to science in popular conception (there is also the sciencism of the Victorian era), but ya, the practice of science is intimately tied to the practice of philosophy.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What do you mean?

Religion is also philosophy*. I'd say atheism is too, but as I mentioned it doesn't really offer a satisfactory answer.
You challenged my post which included both, religion and philosophy to tell me that there are other ways.

You mentioned several times in your post that you're an atheist who makes his own sort of world view and such.

Since I acknowledged philosophy in my original post, I failed to understand what other means offer answers.
You also said ''you do''. Well of course I do. Everyone initially makes their own sense. Philosophy didn't fall out of the sky, it developed.

I have my own philosophy of afterlife and reasons for being here to begin with but I didn't pull them out of thin air - it is heavily influenced by the religious and philosophical teachings of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and Christianity.




*There isn't really any meaning to my capitalisation, I just do it for some reason, even though it's not really correct. I refrained from it just now.

- By "capital P" I wasn't referring to the actual grammatical capitalization of it. But there's a difference between many concepts when you capitalize them. For example, "man" is an individual, while "Man" can refer to the entire species. It's "Man" in a broad sense, as in "all of mankind." Similarly, if you are talking about philosophy as just a personal set of ideas, it's in the general sense. But if you're referring to philosophy as an accepted canon or societally popular schools of thought, perhaps what would be taught in a textbook, you're referring to philosophy as an institution. Thus, "Philosophy" instead of "philosophy." Feel free to ignore this paragraph, it's not central to our discussion. But it's a cool aspect of language I wish more people made use of. Also opens the door for subtle grammatical humor, which is always awesome.

- Atheism doesn't offer a purpose. If it had any coherent statement of purpose or belief, it wouldn't be atheism. But that's not my point. Many people, and you seem to be among them, think that because atheism itself doesn't have an inherent purpose, that atheists are without inherent purpose. If we're conceding the idea that everyone needs some sense of meaning or purpose, it doesn't matter how you get it. Atheists just come up with their own outside of religious context. Thus, freedom.

- Here was one of my other points from earlier: If you don't believe in the truthfulness of religion, as atheists don't, religion doesn't offer better answers to "why" than anything I might come up with personally. And the reason I think that way is because I realize that all religion is, is people making their own meanings, just like everyone else. All meaning, religious or otherwise, is created individually by humans, because there is no inherent, set meaning to existence. So the question of meaning to an atheist as opposed to religion seems silly, because theists might as well be deriving meaning from the side of a cereal box...it achieves the same end.

- My third point was this: what does meaning and purpose give us? happiness, contentment, fulfillment, etc. So, anything that gives you these things is equal to religious meaning. If my purpose in life is to make teddy bears explode with the power of my dancing, and it provides me with happiness and contentment, that's equivalent to religious meaning...because "meaning" doesn't mean you found "The Answer" to existence. It just means you've found your personal justification for doing what you do.

- We're perfectly capable of living without existential crises if we believe that the physical forces of the universe combined in logical ways to make life, and that no deity or grand purpose drives us. To some religious people, they can't fathom this, but not only is it possible, it's fairly easy. That's where the empowering, personal freedom to create our own purpose comes in. When you're in control of your destiny, not a fictional deity, it opens possibilities and affords a strength to people to rise to the challenge of life.

- I have a suspicion that you won't be entirely sated until I produce some actual purposes, examples of mission statements and such. So here are some: Be happy. Live for others. Live for your legacy. Your children, family, and loved ones. Life is awesome, so enjoy it. Make money and f--- b*tches. All of those are valid purposes (though not always honorable, in the case of the last one), all can provide happiness and contentment. And none require any trace of a deity.


tl;dr version: finding meaning outside of religion is easy. Explaining that fact to the religious is hard.

Originally posted by inimalist
science, as in the collection of facts and theories that comprise scientific knowledge, is probably not a philosophy.

how such facts and theories are combined into narratives to explain natural phenomenon probably is, or at the very least, is influenced to a major degree by the philosophy one holds regarding the subject being studied.

the methods themselves, how to collect data, how to design experiments, what qualifies as good data or a proper research programme, is entirely philosophy. statistics in science are essentially a form of epistemology, and how to use and apply them to data depends entirely on your philosophical approach to data itself.

In its origins, natural science was classified as a philosophy because of this. It was a new philosophy about how to know things about the world around us. In modern times, philosophy has become (wrongly) associated with "I can just say my opinion", and therefore seems to be opposed to science in popular conception (there is also the sciencism of the Victorian era), but ya, the practice of science is intimately tied to the practice of philosophy.

I would also posit that as a necessity, science (real science) is an extension of philosophy because it seeks to answer, quite innocently, the curious questions spurned by philosophical inquiry.


Where did we come from? What is happening in the future? What is the mind?


These are question that have nice origins for much of what we do in science. I love it.

Originally posted by Digi
- By "capital P" I wasn't referring to the actual grammatical capitalization of it. But there's a difference between many concepts when you capitalize them. For example, "man" is an individual, while "Man" can refer to the entire species. It's "Man" in a broad sense, as in "all of mankind." Similarly, if you are talking about philosophy as just a personal set of ideas, it's in the general sense. But if you're referring to philosophy as an accepted canon or societally popular schools of thought, perhaps what would be taught in a textbook, you're referring to philosophy as an institution. Thus, "Philosophy" instead of "philosophy." Feel free to ignore this paragraph, it's not central to our discussion. But it's a cool aspect of language I wish more people made use of. Also opens the door for subtle grammatical humor, which is always awesome.

I understood what you wrote and I already said that my capitalisation has no special purpose - it's just something I do, and since it has no special purpose, therefore it isn't referring to any particular thing and therefore it is technically wrong. I just like doing it.
Please don't patronise me.

Originally posted by Digi
- Atheism doesn't offer a purpose. If it had any coherent statement of purpose or belief, it wouldn't be atheism. But that's not my point. Many people, and you seem to be among them, think that because atheism itself doesn't have an inherent purpose, that atheists are without inherent purpose. If we're conceding the idea that everyone needs some sense of meaning or purpose, it doesn't matter how you get it. Atheists just come up with their own outside of religious context. Thus, freedom.

Still has nothing to do with what Shaky asked. The only reason you even harbour the idea of atheism is because somewhere in history religion came to be.
Had it not, atheism would simply be irrelevant as religion would be.

Originally posted by Digi
- Here was one of my other points from earlier: If you don't believe in the truthfulness of religion, as atheists don't, religion doesn't offer better answers to "why" than anything I might come up with personally. And the reason I think that way is because I realize that all religion is, is people making their own meanings, just like everyone else. All meaning, religious or otherwise, is created individually by humans, because there is no inherent, set meaning to existence. So the question of meaning to an atheist as opposed to religion seems silly, because theists might as well be deriving meaning from the side of a cereal box...it achieves the same end.

Claiming that there is no inherent set meaning to existence is a speculation and not a fact.
The question of meaning isn't even put forward to you or any atheist in this particular case. However, such question has clearly played a huge part in human history and thus religion was born.
Had this have been an irrelevant question, not a single civilization would have had any Gods whatsoever.

Originally posted by Digi
- My third point was this: what does meaning and purpose give us? happiness, contentment, fulfillment, etc. So, anything that gives you these things is equal to religious meaning. If my purpose in life is to make teddy bears explode with the power of my dancing, and it provides me with happiness and contentment, that's equivalent to religious meaning...because "meaning" doesn't mean you found "The Answer" to existence. It just means you've found your personal justification for doing what you do.

Purpose of life here and what happens when one dies are the greatest unknowns. Knowing the purpose is knowing the answer to the question humans have asked since the dawn of time. It would ultimately answer the greatest unknown of humanity - what happens when we die.
These questions cannot be answered - only speculated.


Originally posted by Digi
- We're perfectly capable of living without existential crises if we believe that the physical forces of the universe combined in logical ways to make life, and that no deity or grand purpose drives us. To some religious people, they can't fathom this, but not only is it possible, it's fairly easy. That's where the empowering, personal freedom to create our own purpose comes in. When you're in control of your destiny, not a fictional deity, it opens possibilities and affords a strength to people to rise to the challenge of life.

Again, you're justifying atheistic views and subtly claiming how they're superior to everything else, as humans can live without religion. Clearly they're not superior, as history shows us, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Originally posted by Digi
- I have a suspicion that you won't be entirely sated until I produce some actual purposes, examples of mission statements and such. So here are some: Be happy. Live for others. Live for your legacy. Your children, family, and loved ones. Life is awesome, so enjoy it. Make money and f--- b*tches. All of those are valid purposes (though not always honorable, in the case of the last one), all can provide happiness and contentment. And none require any trace of a deity.

At no point did I ask about the purpose. I asked which kind of ideology could offer such answers, other than philosophy and religion, both which have driven man to create a theistic world in search for those answers.


Originally posted by Digi
tl;dr version: finding meaning outside of religion is easy. Explaining that fact to the religious is hard.

I am more inclined to believe those who say they are seeking the answers rather than those who say they have found them.
Purpose of existence is a complex subject and the greatest unanswered question of human history.
As long as theism existed, atheism existed too. These are not post-Christian revolutionary ideas by any means.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I understood what you wrote and I already said that my capitalisation has no special purpose - it's just something I do, and since it has no special purpose, therefore it isn't referring to any particular thing and therefore it is technically wrong. I just like doing it.
Please don't patronise me.

I had no way of knowing you understood me the first time. Your comment about capitalization led me to believe you didn't, so I explained myself. No slight intended, just a misunderstanding.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Still has nothing to do with what Shaky asked. The only reason you even harbour the idea of atheism is because somewhere in history religion came to be.
Had it not, atheism would simply be irrelevant as religion would be.

I was no longer responding to shakya's original question, I was responding to your comments. Specifically, this one:
Theism offers 'answers' to questions humans sought after from the beginning that are yet (if ever) to be answered for sure, such as :''why am I here'',''what happens when I die''.
...which is from page 1, and is where our discussion started. I said more than religion could answer such questions, you asked what, and it led us here.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Claiming that there is no inherent set meaning to existence is a speculation and not a fact.
The question of meaning isn't even put forward to you or any atheist in this particular case. However, such question has clearly played a huge part in human history and thus religion was born.
Had this have been an irrelevant question, not a single civilization would have had any Gods whatsoever.

Speculation implies guesswork. It's a belief, no doubt, that's there's no inherent meaning. But not speculation. No grand purpose has made itself evident, so it's reasonable to say no single "right" purpose exists. The burden of proof is on those claiming that there is, to show how or why. Until then, "we make our own purpose" is the logical default position.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Purpose of life here and what happens when one dies are the greatest unknowns. Knowing the purpose is knowing the answer to the question humans have asked since the dawn of time. It would ultimately answer the greatest unknown of humanity - what happens when we die.
These questions cannot be answered - only speculated.

Agreed, they can't be answered with certainty. But atheism can provide answers as well. What happens when we die? We rot in the ground. Probably not the answer you're looking for, but an answer nonetheless.


Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Again, you're justifying atheistic views and subtly claiming how they're superior to everything else, as humans can live without religion. Clearly they're not superior, as history shows us, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.

First, you're using history and numbers to determine "superior" which aren't valid justification for superiority. Second, be careful what words you try to put in my mouth. Superior again implies "better" which is silly. How could anyone say one is better than the other? It sounds like a grade school fight, a "my dad could beat up your dad" style argument.

What I said was, there's more freedom in atheism to determine your own worldview. I stand by that. It's almost true a priori because there's an infinite number of rationales for creating meaning. In religion, however open-minded and all-encompassing, there's "meanings to life" that don't fit within the religion. Ergo, atheism allows for more freedom to determine purpose. For those who value personal freedom above all else, it's a definite draw of a non-religious worldview. Granted, you don't have to be atheist to leave the dogma of religion, but it's one route.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
At no point did I ask about the purpose. I asked which kind of ideology could offer such answers, other than philosophy and religion, both which have driven man to create a theistic world in search for those answers.

Fair enough.

Why are we here? Quantum fluctuations in which nonexistence is an unstable state created matter, which in turn led to planet and star formation. On our particular planet, millions of years of evolution allowed for intelligent life to form, and humans came into existence.

What are we here to do? Whatever we decide.

Where do we end up? In the ground, and eventually dispersed throughout the universe in either a Big Crunch or the heat death of the universe billions of years hence.

Why exist or care? The universe is an awesome place, and life is pretty cool and worth living.

Those are answers to the same questions, from a non-theistic worldview. It can be done.

Obviously religion appeals to more people, we can't argue with facts. but your consistent claim has been that atheism can't provide answers...and while it can't, technically (no doctrine to speak of) atheists can quite easily.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I am more inclined to believe those who say they are seeking the answers rather than those who say they have found them.

Agreed. This doesn't preclude atheists. I don't "know" any more than you about what comes after death or how we came to be. I just have a worldview and opinions on those things based on the universe around us and what we can learn from it.

We'd being lying if we said that atheism isn't in some way connected to scientific discovery. And science, by its very nature, seeking answers and constantly refining them to the best of our knowledge. it deals with likelihoods and probabilities, not certainties. That is its strength, because it allows for change and improvement in our understanding of the universe.

Religion is, by its very nature, dogmatic. One is clearly the "searching for answers" institution, and it isn't religion.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Purpose of existence is a complex subject and the greatest unanswered question of human history.
As long as theism existed, atheism existed too. These are not post-Christian revolutionary ideas by any means.

It's not unanswered. It gets answered every day by every sentient being. The answer differs from person to person, is all.

Well, I would disagree that atheism offers more freedom in "the purpose of life". It limits it, actually. As a necessity, it precludes a gigantic set of things for a "purpose of life".

I cannot think of a purpose in life that cannot be fulfilled by a theism or be part of a theism. Anything pogniontly atheistic can also be fulfilled be a theist when it comes to a purpose of life.

Even if your chosen purpose is to be antitheist (a very real position...RIP Hitchens* ), you can still be some sort of theist. In fact, I would think criticizing the world's religions for their faults but still believing in a possibility of a transcendent reality (thank you Mindship) is a very noble endeavor (my subjective opinion, of course).

Now, let me be clear: I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong about this if someone provides a good example. I just cannot think of any.

*Disclaimer: I honestly believe Hitchens was doing God's work. I know, that's silly as hell (pun?) on the surface. But if you believe in the extremely complex AND loving God that I do, you'd consider people like Hitchens to be necessary for the advancement of civilization (as in "civility" which is the groundwork for God's real glory: love).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I would disagree that atheism offers more freedom in "the purpose of life". It limits it, actually. As a necessity, it precludes a gigantic set of things for a "purpose of life".

It removes a few things. But someone framing their purpose through any of the world's religions couldn't, say, establish his purpose as "make money." If a person did that, they're no longer really within that religion in terms of how their beliefs influence their actions and goals.

Even something like "I'm going to work for my children's happiness" is a fine endeavor, but, by necessity, it couldn't end there in a religious paradigm or even be paramount in many religions where God is said to always come first.

When you're an atheist, the acceptable purpose is literally anything. Acceptable purposes are finite in any religion that isn't so vague as to be meaningless.

Originally posted by Digi
It removes a few things. But someone framing their purpose through any of the world's religions couldn't, say, establish his purpose as "make money." If a person did that, they're no longer really within that religion in terms of how their beliefs influence their actions and goals.

I disagree with your example.

To paraphrase, "seek riches to do things of righteousness"...

And to extend that further, if a person genuinely thinks what they are doing with that seeking of money, as righteous, then they will be judged (from my religion's perspective) as actually doing that (righteously seeking riches). No matter how deluded one becomes compared to the rest, in my religion, you are judged by the "truest" and most sincere reasons for doing, thinking, and believing. Sure, there are universal truths that apply to all, but even those will have exceptions because it is individualized and subjective to the person themself. Is themself a word? I remember this form middle school...

Originally posted by Digi
Even something like "I'm going to work for my children's happiness" is a fine endeavor, but, by necessity, it couldn't end there in a religious paradigm or even be paramount in many religions where God is said to always come first.

I disagree, here, as well. God is coming first by serving your family in a loving endeavor. To paraphrase again, if you've served them, you have served Me. It is part of OTHER Christian dogmas that serving your family "deifies" them and turns them into idols, but if you think that it is the best and most righteous thing to do, you're serving God.

Originally posted by Digi
When you're an atheist, the acceptable purpose is literally anything.

It is not, as fact. You're limited. It's not a "small" set either.

Everything you can think of that would be a purpose for an atheist, can also be a purpose of a theist. However, as fact, not all purposes of a theist can be what an atheist seeks.


Originally posted by Digi
Acceptable purposes are finite in any religion that isn't so vague as to be meaningless.

To both of your examples, I provided two doctrines from Mormonism that contradict that.




If you were to come up with something like, "f*** bitches, get money", I am sure there is a theism out there for that, too.



Edit - Oh, I know, some of the Viking beliefs.

It would be extended to, "f*** bitches, get money through war."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Everything you can think of that would be a purpose for an atheist, can also be a purpose of a theist.

You're kind of hitting a nail on the head here. This is part of my whole point. Purpose is individual, religion is just how many choose to define it. Religion doesn't provide meaning at all, people do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you were to come up with something like, "f*** bitches, get money", I am sure there is a theism out there for that, too.

But not any theism practiced by, well, anyone. Let's not forget that we're talking about world religions and real people, eh? Yes, I'll happily concede that you could invent a religion in which any pursuit is an acceptable one. But we know those don't really exist. There's rules in the Bible, or other holy books, edicts, governing bodies, dogmas and doctrines, etc.

Perhaps a better way to look at it, loathe as I am to go this direction, is that religion often eliminates immoral, self-serving, morally neutral or ambiguous purposes. I hesitate to go that direction because I want to avoid the stereotype that atheism perpetuates evil somehow - it doesn't - but it does remain true that there isn't a deity saying "no" to it. I can live much of my life morally neutral in terms of my affect on others, and not feel guilty about it. I do happen to work toward good in several avenues in my life, but it's a personal choice, not something that I'd have to feel guilt or duty toward if I stopped.

You're not a good example, dudemon. I've touched on this, but your views of theism aren't 99% of your theistic colleagues on the planet. Do you deny that religion prescribes morality, duty, and goals/purposes/meanings to a large percentage of the population? I would hope you don't. If it didn't, it would be utterly impotent as an institution and wouldn't have any societal pull. The fact that it has such sway over people is directly due to the fact that it imprints its doctrines, purposes, meanings, rules, etc. in the minds of followers. Religion is about as powerful a meme complex as exists on the planet.

Originally posted by Digi
Yes, I'll happily concede that you could invent a religion in which any pursuit is an acceptable one.

This is probably key.


Because you said this, we agree. Meh. It was probably inevitable that we'd come to a middle ground.

Originally posted by Digi
But we know those don't really exist.

I don't know. I've "heard" of some coffee shop religions being precisely that: God is happy with whatever you do as long as you liked it. I think some flavors of pantheism are like that: just add to the collective "happiness" pool by doing whatever makes you happy.


Basically, there are a shit load of religions out there. Some churches only have 1 follower. It's that silly/diverse. Since we agree on the premise of my point, I don't think we need to discuss it further as I am probably wasting your time (and thread space) at this point.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We all know that there are far more theists then atheists in the world. Is this circumstantial or is theism a more natural state then atheism?

Imagine it this way; if you could re-roll the human dice from the beginning, would you end up with a theistic world, like we have now, every time?

You probably would always end up with a mostly theistic population. I think without scientific knowledge of the world around you, it will always be easier to chalk things up to some supernatural creator(s).

Originally posted by Digi
I had no way of knowing you understood me the first time. Your comment about capitalization led me to believe you didn't, so I explained myself. No slight intended, just a misunderstanding.



I was no longer responding to shakya's original question, I was responding to your comments. Specifically, this one:
Theism offers 'answers' to questions humans sought after from the beginning that are yet (if ever) to be answered for sure, such as :''why am I here'',''what happens when I die''.
...which is from page 1, and is where our discussion started. I said more than religion could answer such questions, you asked what, and it led us here.



Speculation implies guesswork. It's a belief, no doubt, that's there's no inherent meaning. But not speculation. No grand purpose has made itself evident, so it's reasonable to say no single "right" purpose exists. The burden of proof is on those claiming that there is, to show how or why. Until then, "we make our own purpose" is the logical default position.



Agreed, they can't be answered with certainty. But atheism can provide answers as well. What happens when we die? We rot in the ground. Probably not the answer you're looking for, but an answer nonetheless.




First, you're using history and numbers to determine "superior" which aren't valid justification for superiority. Second, be careful what words you try to put in my mouth. Superior again implies "better" which is silly. How could anyone say one is better than the other? It sounds like a grade school fight, a "my dad could beat up your dad" style argument.

What I said was, there's more freedom in atheism to determine your own worldview. I stand by that. It's almost true a priori because there's an infinite number of rationales for creating meaning. In religion, however open-minded and all-encompassing, there's "meanings to life" that don't fit within the religion. Ergo, atheism allows for more freedom to determine purpose. For those who value personal freedom above all else, it's a definite draw of a non-religious worldview. Granted, you don't have to be atheist to leave the dogma of religion, but it's one route.



Fair enough.

Why are we here? Quantum fluctuations in which nonexistence is an unstable state created matter, which in turn led to planet and star formation. On our particular planet, millions of years of evolution allowed for intelligent life to form, and humans came into existence.

What are we here to do? Whatever we decide.

Where do we end up? In the ground, and eventually dispersed throughout the universe in either a Big Crunch or the heat death of the universe billions of years hence.

Why exist or care? The universe is an awesome place, and life is pretty cool and worth living.

Those are answers to the same questions, from a non-theistic worldview. It can be done.

Obviously religion appeals to more people, we can't argue with facts. but your consistent claim has been that atheism can't provide answers...and while it can't, technically (no doctrine to speak of) atheists can quite easily.



Agreed. This doesn't preclude atheists. I don't "know" any more than you about what comes after death or how we came to be. I just have a worldview and opinions on those things based on the universe around us and what we can learn from it.

We'd being lying if we said that atheism isn't in some way connected to scientific discovery. And science, by its very nature, seeking answers and constantly refining them to the best of our knowledge. it deals with likelihoods and probabilities, not certainties. That is its strength, because it allows for change and improvement in our understanding of the universe.

Religion is, by its very nature, dogmatic. One is clearly the "searching for answers" institution, and it isn't religion.



It's not unanswered. It gets answered every day by every sentient being. The answer differs from person to person, is all.

You know what this reminds me of? This kind of aggressive non compromising atheistic view which many hold, and some a lot more non-compromising than you?

It reminds me of Fred Hoyle who originally rejected the Big Bang theory proposed by (ironically) a Catholic priest Lemaitre, on the grounds that by accepting the Big Bang theory it would introduce the need for a creator.

I don't want to speak about the theory, just comment on a midset that theism is something that is totally unnecessary and stupid that anything that could possibly point towards it should be rejected from the onset.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You know what this reminds me of? This kind of aggressive non compromising atheistic view which many hold, and some a lot more non-compromising than you?

It reminds me of Fred Hoyle who originally rejected the Big Bang theory proposed by (ironically) a Catholic priest Lemaitre, on the grounds that by accepting the Big Bang theory it would introduce the need for a creator.

I don't want to speak about the theory, just comment on a midset that theism is something that is totally unnecessary and stupid that anything that could possibly point towards it should be rejected from the onset.

The hell? If you're dead set on finding such venom in my post, I'm not going to dissuade you from it. I tried to highlight where we were in agreement, explain my position when we weren't, and tried to diffuse the earlier misunderstanding so that there wouldn't be any bad blood between us.

Disagreement doesn't need to be argument.

If I don't compromise on a point, it's probably because I remain unconvinced that my point needs alteration. No personal animosity is implied, but I'm also not going to concede to an alternative position that I don't find reasonable.

As it is, your reply here addresses none of my points, responds to or refutes none of them. It just seems like an attack. Although, to be fair, I'm a little unclear who the "I" is in the last paragraph...it seems to be referring to me, but it's never disambiguated. In might very well not be an attack, but you would need to clarify. In any case, unless we're going to get back on point, I think we're done here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is probably key.


Because you said this, we agree. Meh. It was probably inevitable that we'd come to a middle ground.



I don't know. I've "heard" of some coffee shop religions being precisely that: God is happy with whatever you do as long as you liked it. I think some flavors of pantheism are like that: just add to the collective "happiness" pool by doing whatever makes you happy.


Basically, there are a shit load of religions out there. Some churches only have 1 follower. It's that silly/diverse. Since we agree on the premise of my point, I don't think we need to discuss it further as I am probably wasting your time (and thread space) at this point.

I run into this a lot. We get overly hypothetical and philosophical on the forum (I'm not innocent of this myself) and forget that our hypotheticals don't represent any meaningful portion of the population. I tend to want to draw it back to what's actually happening, because in theories and made-up scenarios, a lot of religious approaches are harmless. In reality, we see a large influence in ways that I don't agree with.

But no worries.

Originally posted by socool8520
You probably would always end up with a mostly theistic population. I think without scientific knowledge of the world around you, it will always be easier to chalk things up to some supernatural creator(s).

I think it is deeper then that. Every animal that is alive today (including humans) has been molded by evolution. Therefore, theism has some evolutionary advantage. An evolutionary advantage is not always what you might imagine. Like we might think that intelligence would always be "picked" by evolution, but the world is not filled with intelligent species.

Originally posted by Digi
The hell? If you're dead set on finding such venom in my post, I'm not going to dissuade you from it. I tried to highlight where we were in agreement, explain my position when we weren't, and tried to diffuse the earlier misunderstanding so that there wouldn't be any bad blood between us.

Disagreement doesn't need to be argument.

If I don't compromise on a point, it's probably because I remain unconvinced that my point needs alteration. No personal animosity is implied, but I'm also not going to concede to an alternative position that I don't find reasonable.

As it is, your reply here addresses none of my points, responds to or refutes none of them. It just seems like an attack. Although, to be fair, I'm a little unclear who the "I" is in the last paragraph...it seems to be referring to me, but it's never disambiguated. In might very well not be an attack, but you would need to clarify. In any case, unless we're going to get back on point, I think we're done here.



I run into this a lot. We get overly hypothetical and philosophical on the forum (I'm not innocent of this myself) and forget that our hypotheticals don't represent any meaningful portion of the population. I tend to want to draw it back to what's actually happening, because in theories and made-up scenarios, a lot of religious approaches are harmless. In reality, we see a large influence in ways that I don't agree with.

But no worries.

What points are there for me to discuss? You're constantly claiming how atheism is better than any other way and that all others are redundant.

In what way should I refute your claims? Am I going to be convincing you that you're wrong?
No, because I simply don't know if there is a God or there isn't one or if religion is in general better.

Since you reject the possibility of spirituality or religion giving equally fulfilling answers to numerous questions, am I going to dissuade you from that? How exactly could I do that?
You keep saying there's more freedom to atheism to determine your own view - this isn't a fact, it's an opinion. Again, how exactly am I going to refute something which makes you feel spiritually fulfilled?

You have the habit of doing this, or claiming that spirituality and religion is redundant and humans can do without it. However, I don't.

I reject atheism because it doesn't allow me more freedom. It genuinely leaves me unsatisfied in the answers I am seeking mostly in the claim that just because something isn't apparent to me, that simply isn't there.

My comment clearly upset you, when in fact, it shouldn't have, as it wasn't posted in mean spiritedness.
Your numerous posts around the religion forum are exactly like the allegory I gave in my previous post.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What points are there for me to discuss? You're constantly claiming how atheism is better than any other way and that all others are redundant.

Quote where I've ever said this. Heck, I specifically stated in an earlier post that trying to determine which is "better" is silly. So please, quote me. I'm interested to see where I've said either of these things, when I know for a fact that I've said the opposite. In fact, here's the quote, from page 4:
Originally posted by Digi
Superior again implies "better" which is silly. How could anyone say one is better than the other?

So again, don't put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Since you reject the possibility of spirituality or religion giving equally fulfilling answers to numerous questions, am I going to dissuade you from that? How exactly could I do that?

Also a point I never made. I only said religion and spirituality aren't the only ways to find fulfilling answers to life. I never said they didn't offer fulfilling answers. You're making things up, or grossly misunderstanding my words.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You keep saying there's more freedom to atheism to determine your own view - this isn't a fact, it's an opinion.

True, but it's one I've backed with what I believe to be reasonable justifications. More freedom doesn't = better, though, nor does it mean religion can't be fulfilling. It means only what I said, that there's more freedom.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You have the habit of doing this, or claiming that spirituality and religion is redundant and humans can do without it.

Again, please quote me on this. In a technical sense, we can do without it, since many people live happy lives without religion. But it's also fact that many people don't live without religion, or don't want to.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I reject atheism because it doesn't allow me more freedom. It genuinely leaves me unsatisfied in the answers I am seeking mostly in the claim that just because something isn't apparent to me, that simply isn't there.

Atheism doesn't hold that nothing exists that isn't apparent to our senses. There's tons of stuff that we know to exist that we would never perceive with our senses, and probably more yet to be found. Atheism just rejects a divine being behind everything.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
My comment clearly upset you, when in fact, it shouldn't have, as it wasn't posted in mean spiritedness.
Your numerous posts around the religion forum are exactly like the allegory I gave in my previous post.

I'm not upset, I'm confused. It's like we're having two different conversations.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think it is deeper then that. Every animal that is alive today (including humans) has been molded by evolution. Therefore, theism has some evolutionary advantage. An evolutionary advantage is not always what you might imagine. Like we might think that intelligence would always be "picked" by evolution, but the world is not filled with intelligent species.

I don't quite follow. How does theism act as an evolutionary advantage? I could go with theism being a byproduct of self awareness and higher intelligence than other animals, but I think that theism only bridges the gap for answers when science is limited, which is why it is more widely accepted early in human development when science wasn't even close to being what is today. I also believe that no matter how many times evolution took place, it would happen that way.

Originally posted by socool8520
I don't quite follow. How does theism act as an evolutionary advantage? I could go with theism being a byproduct of self awareness and higher intelligence than other animals, but I think that theism only bridges the gap for answers when science is limited, which is why it is more widely accepted early in human development when science wasn't even close to being what is today. I also believe that no matter how many times evolution took place, it would happen that way.

My question is why. Why would evolution favor theist with humans over atheism. I'm guessing that there is an evolutionary advantage to theism. Maybe there is a different mechanism. I'm open to ideas.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My question is why. Why would evolution favor theist with humans over atheism. I'm guessing that there is an evolutionary advantage to theism. Maybe there is a different mechanism. I'm open to ideas. 1. Maybe because there really is a transcendent level to reality, and humans have slowly, painfully, clumsily been aware of this all along.

2. Even if there isn't a transcendent dimension, studies have shown that people with an earnest/genuinely spiritual (not necessarily "religious" perspective on life tend to handle adversity better than those who don't have said perspective.

As an example:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/417k255vwh3m8274/

Google up "spirituality" "stress" "studies" for more.

I could have sworn that theism exists in humans because we evolved a "god-center" where the experience of God can be found (temporal lobe).


Atheists would activate the same area with whatever they have supplanted God with in their lives. Awesome euphoric and meditative experiences with music? Check. That's probably one of my favs, actually.


What is the evolutionary advantage? Why wouldn't it be advantageous to be able to feel calmed, relaxed, euphoric, happy, content, through a bit of calm and relaxed contemplation on the metaphysical? Seems very advantageous for a species to develop such a place in their brain. Life is difficult and very depressing if you think about it. Humans would have needed to develop something to counter that crappy mortal existence.



http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997741


Originally posted by Mindship
1. Maybe because there really is a transcendent level to reality, and humans have slowly, painfully, clumsily been aware of this all along.

2. Even if there isn't, studies have shown that people with a genuinely spiritual (not necessarily "religious" perspective on life tend to handle adversity better than those who don't have said perspective.

As an example:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/417k255vwh3m8274/

Google up "spirituality" "stress" "studies" for more.

Lulz, beaten to the punch. I would looking for that NPR article for far too long and you beat me.


But, yeah, that's what I was getting at. Now, love or spirituality being processed in the brain does not mean, for me, that it is 100% localized to the brain. I do believe there is a transcendence of consciousness and love. Most especially beyond the functions of the brain. That's because I think we have souls.

Originally posted by Mindship
1. Maybe because there really is a transcendent level to reality, and humans have slowly, painfully, clumsily been aware of this all along.

2. Even if there isn't, studies have shown that people with a genuinely spiritual (not necessarily "religious" perspective on life tend to handle adversity better than those who don't.

As an example:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/417k255vwh3m8274/

Google up "spirituality" "stress" "studies" for more.

I generally agree with you. String theory, states there are 10 dimensions (3 spacial, 1 of time, and 5 curled up at the planck length). There is enough space for such a reality to exist, but when we look around at nature, humans seem to be unique. Other animal are not ritual in nature. Even Homo Erectus lacked ritualism. The reason I emphasize ritualism is because I think it is the only outward appearance of spiritualism, as we have spoken before.

Why are humans unique in this respect?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I generally agree with you. String theory, states there are 10 dimensions (3 spacial, 1 of time, and 5 curled up at the planck length). There is enough space for such a reality to exist, but when we look around at nature, humans seem to be unique. Other animal are not ritual in nature. Even Homo Erectus lacked ritualism. The reason I emphasize ritualism is because I think it is the only outward appearance of spiritualism, as we have spoken before.

Why are humans unique in this respect?

Well, since I'm clearly a theist, I think God began his dispensation among man when we developed enough as a creation to reciprocate, spiritually. I don't define "perfection" like the antitheists do in their "logic" proofs against perfection. I define it as an ascension or transcendence at a level sufficient enough to be beyond anything temporal. In this regard, God can still desire love from His "children" while still being perfect.


So, it was inevitable that evolution would lead to sentient beings that were capable of loving God back. That was His end-game all along. It took Him 13.7 billion years...at least with Homo sapiens (or an extra sapiens, if you want).

Now, this is my theory and it is a mixture of some facts and spirituality. I see evolution as a very central tool to God's plan. Others see it is blasphemy. I think they are the ones blaspheming God's extremely intelligent nature. uhuh BTW, God loves math.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm guessing that there is an evolutionary advantage to theism. Maybe there is a different mechanism. I'm open to ideas.

Evolution does not always produce things because they have an advantage.

For example the "lunula" of your fingernail is white. This provides no advantage, it is a side effect of how the nail grows that never evolved away because it provides no evolutionary disadvantage.

You can reference Digi's argument to see how this might work with theism. Thought processes that are evolutionary advantageous may have theism as a side effect. So long as there is no evolutionary pressure against theism (virtually non-existent in the course of history).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Evolution does not always produce things because they have an advantage.

For example the "lunula" of your fingernail is white. This provides no advantage, it is a side effect of how the nail grows that never evolved away because it provides no evolutionary disadvantage.

You can reference Digi's argument to see how this might work with theism. Thought processes that are evolutionary advantageous may have theism as a side effect. So long as there is no evolutionary pressure against theism (virtually non-existent in the course of history).

Yes, it could just be a fluke, but that's boring.

shakey/mindship/ddm:

I sort of think you guys are talking past the point when you are getting into evolution here. Humans, as in, animals that have theism, are not very old at all. Genetically, we have had little time, at all, to change and little survival pressure has been applied to our genotype. Changes in human behaviour from, say, 100 000 years ago until today are almost exclusively cultural (some changes, sure).

The problem is, you are taking the concept of "theism" as it exists in the modern context and trying to explain where it came from. A similarly problematic question would be like saying, "soccer is a sport of widespread popularity, therefore, it must serve some adaptive advantage evolutionarily", when its popularity is far better explained by cultural factors. "Theism" did not evolve into humans. There was never an evolutionary pressure on humans to be "theists". What would have evolved are the mental biases in terms of information processing that are congruent with theistic explanations for events.

So, "theism" did not evolve, in terms of biological evolution. What evolved were biases to see agency in randomness. There is a genetic advantage for such cognitive biases, not for theism. Appealing to biology, theism has nothing to do with it, for, among other reasons, it hasn't existed for long enough to really apply a selection pressure to the human genetic code. Theism is a product of our biased brains working together and developing stories and explanations for events that are congruent with experiences. This may seem like a small point, but these are vastly different things. Without making this distinction, we can literally ask why anything that is popular at any moment might be biologically advantageous, which is extremely silly.

I always kind of assumed that there's more theists than atheists in the world because theists are smarter and survive while atheists get picked off by predators or kill themselves when they realize everything they do is meaningless because there's nothing after death.

Originally posted by inimalist
shakey/mindship/ddm:

I sort of think you guys are talking past the point when you are getting into evolution here. Humans, as in, animals that have theism, are not very old at all. Genetically, we have had little time, at all, to change and little survival pressure has been applied to our genotype. Changes in human behaviour from, say, 100 000 years ago until today are almost exclusively cultural (some changes, sure).

The problem is, you are taking the concept of "theism" as it exists in the modern context and trying to explain where it came from. A similarly problematic question would be like saying, "soccer is a sport of widespread popularity, therefore, it must serve some adaptive advantage evolutionarily", when its popularity is far better explained by cultural factors. "Theism" did not evolve into humans. There was never an evolutionary pressure on humans to be "theists". What would have evolved are the mental biases in terms of information processing that are congruent with theistic explanations for events.

So, "theism" did not evolve, in terms of biological evolution. What evolved were biases to see agency in randomness. There is a genetic advantage for such cognitive biases, not for theism. Appealing to biology, theism has nothing to do with it, for, among other reasons, it hasn't existed for long enough to really apply a selection pressure to the human genetic code. Theism is a product of our biased brains working together and developing stories and explanations for events that are congruent with experiences. This may seem like a small point, but these are vastly different things. Without making this distinction, we can literally ask why anything that is popular at any moment might be biologically advantageous, which is extremely silly.

I feel like you are splitting hairs. Of course I am talking about mechanisms that lead to theism, and labeling it theism. I'm trying to keep things simple for two reasons; 1. this is an Internet forum, 2. my personal knowledge is limited, and I would find myself out of the conversation quickly.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I feel like you are splitting hairs. Of course I am talking about mechanisms that lead to theism, and labeling it theism. I'm trying to keep things simple for two reasons; 1. this is an Internet forum, 2. my personal knowledge is limited, and I would find myself out of the conversation quickly.

but those are different things

guns are widespread in human civilization and warfare, in fact, ubiquitous to the point that there is no society that does not use them almost exclusively for security and military matters.

Your question was based on the idea that theism is widespread in human society and history.

Now, if we are saying there is a biological advantage to theism, it is equivalent to saying there is a biological advantage to using guns. The problem is, this is actually impossible in the case of guns, as they have only existed for a few hundred years. There could never have been a biological selective pressure against not using guns. Similarly, there was never a biological pressure against not being a theist.

Like, maybe if you see this distinction as "splitting hairs", talking about the origins of cognitions in evolutionary terms is probably not a good idea. It'd be like trying to talk about 90s hip hop and saying the difference between the east and west coast is splitting hairs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Lulz, beaten to the punch. I would looking for that NPR article for far too long and you beat me.Now, if I can only finish editing my posts before people quote me. *sigh*
Originally posted by dadudemon
But, yeah, that's what I was getting at. Now, love or spirituality being processed in the brain does not mean, for me, that it is 100% localized to the brain. I do believe there is a transcendence of consciousness and love. Most especially beyond the functions of the brain. That's because I think we have souls. I prefer this view as well. I would say Consciousness (in the broadest sense of the term, hence upper-case 'C') is the ground of being, not matter, with familiar awareness 'peaking' in the human brain (but ultimately culminating in the Godhead).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
String theory, states there are 10 dimensions (3 spacial, 1 of time, and 5 curled up at the planck length). There is enough space for such a reality to exist... I tend to see the physical universe as the 'hardware' of reality, and these compactified dimensions as hidden hardware. When I talk of a transcendent reality, I generally adhere to the perennial philosophy (Huxley's term): the common thread which runs through all mystical/panentheistic (not pantheistic) systems. This transcendent reality is beyond the sensory-physical, beyond the symbolic-mental, and at best can only be hinted at through empirical measures (eg, relaxation response), or logical reasoning (ontological proofs). Neither are actual evidence. Only attention-training (meditation) permits direct, immediate access (according to this model).
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Other animal are not ritual in nature. Even Homo Erectus lacked ritualism. The reason I emphasize ritualism is because I think it is the only outward appearance of spiritualism, as we have spoken before.

Why are humans unique in this respect? Because we can be self-aware / metaconscious: conscious of being conscious. As far as we know, only human beings can exercise the attention control required to 'disinvest' from the familiar worlds of matter and mind. A crude simulation of this disinvestment would be the lucid dream.

It's sometimes been said, fancifully, that Man is to be pitied for his (apparently) unique stature. That is, (subhuman) animals are mortal but don't know it, while the angels are immortal and know it. Only Man is mortal and knows it. And transcendent reality aside, perhaps theism offers evolutionary advantage simply because it is a means of defusing (somewhat) death terror. Ie, 'God' is a beneficial illusion.

Originally posted by inimalist
So, "theism" did not evolve, in terms of biological evolution. What evolved were biases to see agency in randomness. There is a genetic advantage for such cognitive biases, not for theism. Appealing to biology, theism has nothing to do with it, for, among other reasons, it hasn't existed for long enough to really apply a selection pressure to the human genetic code. Theism is a product of our biased brains working together and developing stories and explanations for events that are congruent with experiences. This may seem like a small point, but these are vastly different things. Without making this distinction, we can literally ask why anything that is popular at any moment might be biologically advantageous, which is extremely silly. Duly noted, and definitely a point I would not automatically dismiss.

Originally posted by inimalist
shakey/mindship/ddm:

I sort of think you guys are talking past the point when you are getting into evolution here. Humans, as in, animals that have theism, are not very old at all. Genetically, we have had little time, at all, to change and little survival pressure has been applied to our genotype. Changes in human behaviour from, say, 100 000 years ago until today are almost exclusively cultural (some changes, sure).

The problem is, you are taking the concept of "theism" as it exists in the modern context and trying to explain where it came from. A similarly problematic question would be like saying, "soccer is a sport of widespread popularity, therefore, it must serve some adaptive advantage evolutionarily", when its popularity is far better explained by cultural factors. "Theism" did not evolve into humans. There was never an evolutionary pressure on humans to be "theists". What would have evolved are the mental biases in terms of information processing that are congruent with theistic explanations for events.

So, "theism" did not evolve, in terms of biological evolution. What evolved were biases to see agency in randomness. There is a genetic advantage for such cognitive biases, not for theism. Appealing to biology, theism has nothing to do with it, for, among other reasons, it hasn't existed for long enough to really apply a selection pressure to the human genetic code. Theism is a product of our biased brains working together and developing stories and explanations for events that are congruent with experiences. This may seem like a small point, but these are vastly different things. Without making this distinction, we can literally ask why anything that is popular at any moment might be biologically advantageous, which is extremely silly.

I think we disagree, fundamentally (correct me if we don't). There would be a clear selection bias for a sapient species that could have a "god-complex" with which to cope. Along with brain power comes a much more problematic element: "thinking" about and analyzing bad stuff. The natural selection would be in favor of those that developed a way to cope with that.

Theisms evolved out of man's natural evolution. It is a byproduct of evolution. You may paint it as "seeing order in randomness" I see it as "seeing order where order exists on a much higher conscious plane than ever before in evolution". I say that that "vision" is so far developed as to actually be attributable to God.


Originally posted by Mindship
I prefer this view as well. I would say Consciousness (in the broadest sense of the term, hence upper-case 'C') is the ground of being, not matter, with familiar awareness 'peaking' in the human brain (but ultimately culminating in the Godhead).

I can agree with that. Since I think all humans have the potential to become Godly, it should be no surprise that I would assume we could all transcend the corporeal into a higher state of consciousness...even to the point of being considered "Godly". Whether this ultimate forme is "one" or individual, I do not know. Nor is it fleshed out in my own religion. But that may very well be the ultimate conscious state: becoming 'one' with God. In other words, we all become God at our ultimate end.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think we disagree, fundamentally (correct me if we don't). There would be a clear selection bias for a sapient species that could have a "god-complex" with which to cope. Along with brain power comes a much more problematic element: "thinking" about and analyzing bad stuff. The natural selection would be in favor of those that developed a way to cope with that.

then the onus would be on you to show some evidence of genetic change driven by pressure specifically relating to whether someone had a theistic view of nature.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Theisms evolved out of man's natural evolution. It is a byproduct of evolution. You may paint it as "seeing order in randomness" I see it as "seeing order where order exists on a much higher conscious plane than ever before in evolution".

except, if that were the case, we wouldn't see patterns in randomness. whether or not some cases we think are randomness actually reflect some type of divine whatever, the bias evolutionarily is clearly toward agency in randomness, and in fact, goes back so far in evolutionary history that almost all complex animals have it to some degree. The startle reflex can almost be seen as an adaptive behaviour related to this type of thinking.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I say that that "vision" is so far developed as to actually be attributable to God.

LOL... you mean, excepting the fact that our eye is built backwards and all the visual processing errors that we experience?

Originally posted by inimalist
then the onus would be on you to show some evidence of genetic change driven by pressure specifically relating to whether someone had a theistic view of nature.

You want me to prove that God influenced the outcome of evolution to a higher state of consciousness to eventually turn towards God?

K. My evidence is the same thing as the conclusion: it happened. Then I prayed and mediated on it to double check.

Next.



Originally posted by inimalist
except, if that were the case, we wouldn't see patterns in randomness.

This is a circular argument and one that has been done by others far smarter than you and I.

You say "random" I say that there is actually a pattern. You say there is a pattern, I say it is randomness.

There are even patterns in "true" randomness.

This is a circular and you must see that.

Originally posted by inimalist
whether or not some cases we think are randomness actually reflect some type of divine whatever, the bias evolutionarily is clearly toward agency in randomness, and in fact, goes back so far in evolutionary history that almost all complex animals have it to some degree.

I see this as a clear supporting argument for my position. You see it as the opposite. Interesting.



Originally posted by inimalist
LOL... you mean, excepting the fact that our eye is built backwards and all the visual processing errors that we experience?

You are joking, right? "vision" is in quotes for a reason. It is not supposed to be used as a direct reading.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You say "random" I say that there is actually a pattern. You say there is a pattern, I say it is randomness.

I'm talking about actual randomness

like, if you give people a random string of numbers they will tell you there is a pattern

unless I'm reading you wrong, God is really putting a pattern into our specifically developed strings of randomness?

EDIT: also, I love the theories that are so unfalsifiable there would be no perceivable difference in the world if they were true or not...

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm talking about actual randomness

So am I.

The longer a random number sequence, the more patterns you can find in it.

Same with patterns. You can find randomness in patterns. Take Pi. It is clearly an ordered number based on a very specific universal pattern. However, the number itself extends, randomly, for infinity with no solution in sight. Random and ordered at the same time.

Originally posted by inimalist
like, if you give people a random string of numbers they will tell you there is a pattern

A pattern can literally and objectively be there, though. Do you not see that? A pattern can also be subjectively applied to such a random number, too.

Originally posted by inimalist
unless I'm reading you wrong, God is really putting a pattern into our specifically developed strings of randomness?

I sort of think so...but I am not sure if I would quite phrase it like that. God created this rules of randomness with a conscious effort towards our multiuniverse's existence (and the ultimate goal of sentience). If that makes sense. They were created and then influenced within those bounds to result in us.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: also, I love the theories that are so unfalsifiable there would be no perceivable difference in the world if they were true or not...

I know, right? You ain't got shit. uhuh

The same goes for your exact arguments, too, btw. "We can never know all of information about the universe/multiverse because it is potentially infinite so we could never truly know it. Therefore, we can say god does not exist because we can't prove God exists, ever, due to our limitations. The argument is meaningless." That's the same argument as, "We can never disprove God's existance because we can never know all of information about the universe/multiverse because it is potentially infinite so we could never truly know it. Therefore, we can say God does exists because we can't disprove God exists, ever, due to our limitations and understanding: thus we invoke a "super-consciousness" that CAN comprehend this infinity to solve the problem. The argument against God is meaningless."

Or did you already realize that you're just rehashing the same circular discussions had be people much smarter than you and I? Me thinks you did...which makes you a dastardly devil. I'm on to you.

so, your argument boils down to: "there is no such thing as randomness"?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, your argument boils down to: "there is no such thing as randomness"?

No, it boils down to:


The longer a random number sequence, the more patterns you can find in it.

Same with patterns. You can find randomness in patterns. Take Pi. It is clearly an ordered number based on a very specific universal pattern. However, the number itself extends, randomly, for infinity with no solution in sight. Random and ordered at the same time.


and:

A pattern can literally and objectively be there, though. Do you not see that? A pattern can also be subjectively applied to such a random number, too.


and:

There would be a clear selection bias for a sapient species that could have a "god-complex" with which to cope. Along with brain power comes a much more problematic element: "thinking" about and analyzing bad stuff. The natural selection would be in favor of those that developed a way to cope with that.

and:

Theisms evolved out of man's natural evolution. It is a byproduct of evolution. You may paint it as "seeing order in randomness" I see it as "seeing order where order exists on a much higher conscious plane than ever before in evolution".


You could say one of my points is: "Randomness is a subjective conclusion to the max."

Originally posted by dadudemon
The longer a random number sequence, the more patterns you can find in it.

this actually is the literal basis of my point. Randomness is not subjective, but the patterns we see in it are, and our ability to see those patterns is what we evolved.

even in absolute randomness, human brains find patterns.

I see no reason for your God complex thing... unless you phrased it maybe in terms of secondary control, but then distinguishing it as "god" instead of any other type of compensatory construct is meaningless. Our "God" spot in the brain is actually not exclusively associated with God, and it is much more probable that God is a concept we later discovered and were attracted to that activated that spot (the same way a car mechanic will see activation in the facial area when they see a car, the area isn't specifically about faces but rather expert level ability to distinguish). Like, you are speaking as if the superior temporal lobe is only active when dealing with the divine (I know it isn't you specifically who called it the God spot, but that is not a term neuroscience uses, unless trying to get eyeballs to paper. In theory, STL also activates during forms of epilepsy where people feel as if they ARE god, or when people have feelings of a presence in the room).

coping and belongingness (also called secondary control sometimes) are certainly things we, and other species, evolved. The connection of the divine to those is almost certainly not related to God, as the construct has only existed for ~50 000 years, and would therefore not have had the time to cause a major change in our genotype, and there is no evidence from history that such a god or theist based selection was ever a pressure humans underwent. This position is stuck in one of two lines of argument:

1. You can show evidence that there were selective pressures specifically related to the divine on humans (so, roughly in the past 100 000 - 1 000 000 years).

2. Arguing that when things like seeing agency in randomness or drives for belongingness evolved, in some of the earliest social animals, there was a God component to it, in such a way that all animals are tied to the divine.

1 is totally out of line with the historical record, and 2 is unfalsifiable and also not really evidenced.

I don't see why you are resistant to theism and God as being products of culture rather than evolution. If you can do mental cartwheels to see God in evolution, surely you can see him at work in culture....

Originally posted by Digi
Quote where I've ever said this. Heck, I specifically stated in an earlier post that trying to determine which is "better" is silly. So please, quote me. I'm interested to see where I've said either of these things, when I know for a fact that I've said the opposite. In fact, here's the quote, from page 4:


So again, don't put words in my mouth.



Also a point I never made. I only said religion and spirituality aren't the only ways to find fulfilling answers to life. I never said they didn't offer fulfilling answers. You're making things up, or grossly misunderstanding my words.



True, but it's one I've backed with what I believe to be reasonable justifications. More freedom doesn't = better, though, nor does it mean religion can't be fulfilling. It means only what I said, that there's more freedom.



Again, please quote me on this. In a technical sense, we can do without it, since many people live happy lives without religion. But it's also fact that many people don't live without religion, or don't want to.



Atheism doesn't hold that nothing exists that isn't apparent to our senses. There's tons of stuff that we know to exist that we would never perceive with our senses, and probably more yet to be found. Atheism just rejects a divine being behind everything.



I'm not upset, I'm confused. It's like we're having two different conversations.

You're right, there are two different conversations because you insisting on preaching to me about atheism, which frankly, I don't care about.
You know very well what your approach is to theism in this forum - it is redundant for me to quote it here, because you're going off on a tangent and is beside the point. I merely mentioned my allegory as this is what you appear to me every time I read your posts here (and I read them, I just don't comment on all of them).


You quoted my original post and said there are other ways are fulfilling except philosophy and religion, i asked what other ones are you talking about and I STILL haven't gotten an answer.

I wish you'd just say what it is? Is it atheism? Is it spirituality? Is it science?

I think atheism, spirituality and science all fall under certain definitions of philosophy.

Originally posted by inimalist
this actually is the literal basis of my point. Randomness is not subjective, but the patterns we see in it are, and our ability to see those patterns is what we evolved.


And therein lies your problem:

It's still not randomness because the ordered fashion is labeled as "randomness".

We still find a pattern and label that pattern as an ordered form: randomness. I am guessing that you will never agree on that point.

And the patterns you see in it are not subjective, at times, either. Like I pointed out, the random sequence of the numbers in PI are objectively not random. However, they are objectively random, as well (because we can never know the exact number). It depends upon the objective measure used.

That decision is the "subjectiveness".




Originally posted by inimalist
1. You can show evidence that there were selective pressures specifically related to the divine on humans (so, roughly in the past 100 000 - 1 000 000 years).

No, the last 13.7 billion years and possibly before that. As fact, I believe it HAD to occur before the beginning of the universe.

BTW, I also believe your soul, as well as mine, is older than the universe. I also believe our intelligence (consciousness) is eternal and without time. It has existed for eternity by all of our mortal abilities to comprehend.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see why you are resistant to theism and God as being products of culture rather than evolution. If you can do mental cartwheels to see God in evolution, surely you can see him at work in culture....

I don't see why you think those two are mutually exclusive and that I believe as such. I think they are both necessary for each other. God could not be loved if culture did not exist. God could not genuinely love if culture did not exist (it would be like loving an inanimate object...not what I am describing. I'm talking about reciprocated love).

Of course, I'm just using your words. I would choose different words.

Originally posted by inimalist
shakey/mindship/ddm:

I sort of think you guys are talking past the point when you are getting into evolution here. Humans, as in, animals that have theism, are not very old at all. Genetically, we have had little time, at all, to change and little survival pressure has been applied to our genotype. Changes in human behaviour from, say, 100 000 years ago until today are almost exclusively cultural (some changes, sure).

The problem is, you are taking the concept of "theism" as it exists in the modern context and trying to explain where it came from. A similarly problematic question would be like saying, "soccer is a sport of widespread popularity, therefore, it must serve some adaptive advantage evolutionarily", when its popularity is far better explained by cultural factors. "Theism" did not evolve into humans. There was never an evolutionary pressure on humans to be "theists". What would have evolved are the mental biases in terms of information processing that are congruent with theistic explanations for events.

So, "theism" did not evolve, in terms of biological evolution. What evolved were biases to see agency in randomness. There is a genetic advantage for such cognitive biases, not for theism. Appealing to biology, theism has nothing to do with it, for, among other reasons, it hasn't existed for long enough to really apply a selection pressure to the human genetic code. Theism is a product of our biased brains working together and developing stories and explanations for events that are congruent with experiences. This may seem like a small point, but these are vastly different things. Without making this distinction, we can literally ask why anything that is popular at any moment might be biologically advantageous, which is extremely silly.

No, a gun is a thing. To use your analogy, theism would be war, not a gun.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, a gun is a thing. To use your analogy, theism would be war, not a gun.

Theism is a thing, too. It's even an invention.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Theism is a thing, too. It's even an invention.

I don't buy that.

uugh whats a theist? (=======================ponders and looks around to see what other people wrote?

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see why you are resistant to theism and God as being products of culture rather than evolution. If you can do mental cartwheels to see God in evolution, surely you can see him at work in culture....

Wait, so are you saying culture is not a by product of evolution and that it should be considered as something entirely different? (God being a cultural concept wouldn't stop it from being an evolutionary concept either, but who cares, my question is more relevant)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, a gun is a thing. To use your analogy, theism would be war, not a gun.

its not a perfect analogy, but it certainly works better than theism as war. The soccer analogy I used earlier works too.

even then, war isn't evolutionary unless you call any intergroup conflict war (some people do, though I think there are better definitions). Though, the data of chimp intergroup conflict comes more from studies on chimps in habitats where humans are threatening their resources, meaning that war itself might be a cultural construct based on evolutionary pressures in low resource contexts.

Originally posted by Bentley
Wait, so are you saying culture is not a by product of evolution and that it should be considered as something entirely different? (God being a cultural concept wouldn't stop it from being an evolutionary concept either, but who cares, my question is more relevant)

there is a difference between something coming from what evolution selected and something being selected through evolution. A massive difference.

Think about the language you speak. Evolution selected for you to have the ability to learn language, but the phonemes, grammar, and all that of the language you learn is entirely cultural.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, the last 13.7 billion years and possibly before that. As fact, I believe it HAD to occur before the beginning of the universe.

BTW, I also believe your soul, as well as mine, is older than the universe. I also believe our intelligence (consciousness) is eternal and without time. It has existed for eternity by all of our mortal abilities to comprehend.

so, in that case, you aren't arguing that theism is a consequence of evolution in any way, but rather has to do with creation.

my point, literally, has been that evolution did not select for theism, which, according to this, you agree with.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You're right, there are two different conversations because you insisting on preaching to me about atheism, which frankly, I don't care about.
You know very well what your approach is to theism in this forum - it is redundant for me to quote it here, because you're going off on a tangent and is beside the point. I merely mentioned my allegory as this is what you appear to me every time I read your posts here (and I read them, I just don't comment on all of them).


You quoted my original post and said there are other ways are fulfilling except philosophy and religion, i asked what other ones are you talking about and I STILL haven't gotten an answer.

I wish you'd just say what it is? Is it atheism? Is it spirituality? Is it science?

Wow, holy crap. So I prove that you were making things up, misquoting me, and claiming the exact opposite of me than I was, and yet you continue attacking me.

Forget it lil. You're being far too angry toward me to have a discussion here. Frankly, I'm surprised at this coming from you. We've never so much as disagreed, and now I'm taking heat like I've been attacking you for years. I honestly don't know where this is coming from. If there was some perceived slight, in this thread or any other, it was not intended, nor was my tone or words intended to offend. There's not much more I can say.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, in that case, you aren't arguing that theism is a consequence of evolution in any way, but rather has to do with creation.

my point, literally, has been that evolution did not select for theism, which, according to this, you agree with.




I'm saying that the outcome of evolution on some planets does select for "theism" because that's God's goal. I am definitely not an expert on everything God has done or will do, so I cannot say for sure that every planet that can support life as we know it, will lead to sapient beings.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm saying that the outcome of evolution on some planets does select for "theism" because that's God's goal. I am definitely not an expert on everything God has done or will do, so I cannot say for sure that every planet that can support life as we know it, will lead to sapient beings.

so there would have never been a specific environmental pressure selecting for it, as it was already there before the creation of the universe.

God selected for it, not nature.

Originally posted by inimalist
so there would have never been a specific environmental pressure selecting for it, as it was already there before the creation of the universe.

You see random selection.

I see what superficially looks like random selection but is an extremely complex series of events that had a conscious goal.

therefore you would agree with the statement that evolution did not select for theism, yes?

Originally posted by inimalist
therefore you would agree with the statement that evolution did not select for theism, yes?

I am not sure if you intended to say that.

From my words, the correct reply to my post would have been:

"Therefore you would agree with the statement that "evolution" selected for theism, yes?"

Because I find evolution to have a conscious contributer. It's only a tool.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I always kind of assumed that there's more theists than atheists in the world because theists are smarter and survive while atheists get picked off by predators or kill themselves when they realize everything they do is meaningless because there's nothing after death.

You're joking right?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think atheism, spirituality and science all fall under certain definitions of philosophy.

Then theism does too right? You know, since we're broadening philosophy.

Originally posted by Digi
Wow, holy crap. So I prove that you were making things up, misquoting me, and claiming the exact opposite of me than I was, and yet you continue attacking me.

Forget it lil. You're being far too angry toward me to have a discussion here. Frankly, I'm surprised at this coming from you. We've never so much as disagreed, and now I'm taking heat like I've been attacking you for years. I honestly don't know where this is coming from. If there was some perceived slight, in this thread or any other, it was not intended, nor was my tone or words intended to offend. There's not much more I can say.

Hah. I'm not angry at all. What is there to be angry about? Clearly you're upset, so we can leave this convo altogether. No hard feelings.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think atheism, spirituality and science all fall under certain definitions of philosophy.

Indeed. So, philosophy of all sorts and religion it is, then.

I think it's pretty obvious: theism is more prevalent because it's leftover from our more primitive ancestors reflecting fears and concerns about the afterlife. But now that science is explaining more and more I think there is less and less reason for such superstitions.

I'd imagine that another reason is that some people find moral relativism and moral nihilism utterly repelling, such as myself, though even if I convert to atheism one day I'll retain my belief in an objective morality.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'd imagine that another reason is that some people find moral relativism and moral nihilism utterly repelling, such as myself, though even if I convert to atheism one day I'll retain my belief in an objective morality.

It's a myth that you can't have morality without a supernatural deity. Religion should not have a monopoly on morality seeing as they are based on books that condone slavery and condemn women and homosexuals. Again, leftovers from superstitious primitives. Intelligent human reason and communication could come up with far better moral codes.

He said objective morality, which... is pretty much impossible without a universal authority, yeah. Sorry.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It's a myth that you can't have morality without a supernatural deity. Religion should not have a monopoly on morality seeing as they are based on books that condone slavery and condemn women and homosexuals. Again, leftovers from superstitious primitives. Intelligent human reason and communication could come up with far better moral codes.
Atheists can be moral people, I'm just saying that almost all moral relativists are atheists and thus the two get conflated, and I'd imagine some people find atheism offputting because it opens the doors to moral relativism so to speak.

I'm not a Biblical inerrantist, so I don't really take every moral epithet in the Bible at face value. What is at the heart of my morality is Jesus's two greatest commandments, which can both be boiled down to act out of love. IMO love is the heart of moral motivation, so I believe that my moral responsibility is to act out of love and do what makes logical sense from there. I believe that moral code is tied directly to God, though if I'm wrong about God's existence (which I freely admit I could be) I still regret nothing about my moral code.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
He said objective morality, which... is pretty much impossible without a universal authority, yeah. Sorry.

So let me know when you get some instruction from this "universal authority." Because so far the books that are claimed as "His Word" have already been effectively debunked. The only "GOD" we know is our BRAINS, so that's what we should use to be moral beings.

cause ppl are dumb, smh.

And honestly, I think a lot of people don't really think about it much. The facts and evidence of evolution are sort of suppressed to keep from "offending" religious folks and people just kind of go along with what is socially acceptable in society and that is to believe in God. It's the same reason you dare not run for public office unless you are outspoken about your belief in God.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
cause ppl are dumb, smh.

Not dumb, just wrong.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Atheists can be moral people, I'm just saying that almost all moral relativists are atheists and thus the two get conflated, and I'd imagine some people find atheism offputting because it opens the doors to moral relativism so to speak.


Every religion is its own moral relativism. They are mostly shaped by the culture that wrote them. Hence why there are weird taboos in several religions.

Originally posted by socool8520
Every religion is its own moral relativism. They are mostly shaped by the culture that wrote them. Hence why there are weird taboos in several religions.

Yeah, I'm not sure I understand why it's said that morality from an imaginary omnipotent being for whose existence there is no evidence is "objective." If the source is questionable at best how is that objective?

I just love how an omnipotent being cares about our actions.

I guess I relate, I get pissed off whenever an ant betrays another ant. I throw a fit and judge them. One time a whole bunch of ants pissed me off so I took a hose and squirted water where their ant hill was and caused a massive flood killing them all. It was hilarious, but I'm not a psychopath. The ants had just sinned far too much, they had to die. This is normal stuff a normal rational being with infinite love would do.

It really just doesn't make any sense to me. If any person acted in this way they would either be locked up or killed. Quickly.

Originally posted by socool8520
It really just doesn't make any sense to me. If any person acted in this way they would either be locked up or killed. Quickly.

There are not just two options, but three:

-Locked up
-Killed
-Worshiped as a deity

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We all know that there are far more theists then atheists in the world. Is this circumstantial or is theism a more natural state then atheism?
From a purely logical point of view, yes, theism is more natural.

Atheism is at best being eccentric, and at worst being an aberration

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
So let me know when you get some instruction from this "universal authority." Because so far the books that are claimed as "His Word" have already been effectively debunked. The only "GOD" we know is our BRAINS, so that's what we should use to be moral beings.
TBH NewGuy is right and your little rant about *debunking* God is irrelevant to the subject matter.


I am sorry but from a few threads I have skimmed trough in this sub-forum I see a great lack of competence on Atheists's part. The "brain god," as you put it, would be disappointed LOL

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I think it's pretty obvious: theism is more prevalent because it's leftover from our more primitive ancestors reflecting fears and concerns about the afterlife. But now that science is explaining more and more I think there is less and less reason for such superstitions.
BTW, staying with William Lane Craig on religion, he debunked this position decades ago.

BQL2YDY_LiM

It's not the act of demonstrating how it originates that makes it false (evolutionary origins), it's the lack of evidence for it that makes it likely to be false. He is setting up a straw man.

I've been reading some of Dawkins' The God Delusion and one theory of how our minds became gullible toward belief in superstitious ideas is that as children we had to trust adults in the natural world and children don't really know the difference between good ideas and bad ideas, such as not going near the water's edge for fear of crocodiles (good idea) vs. "you must sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon otherwise the rains will fail is at best a waste of time and goats" (bad idea).

For myself I can speak for personal experiences lending what appears to be evidence for a being capable of hearing me and controlling a trillion universes easily. Since it is an experience that I've had repeatedly,asking for blessings, I'd literally be lying to say something that didn't include personal faith in God enough to ask for specific things in the same way I'd ask a physical being I could see. I can't help but to be appreciative when I receive what I've asked for repeatedly( understandably) I become hard pressed to betray the giver of these perceived blessing by denying that I asked them as if they existed. The longer people live the more opportunity they have to have personal experiences that they attribute to something supernatural.

I kind of like my original answer to this question:
Originally posted by Digi
Every time with a re-roll, no. Most times, yes.

It relates to evolution. Minds focused on hunting and gathering instead of existential crises were more likely to survive. But as we developed cognitive awareness, our minds turned to our origins, the origins and explanations for natural phenomena and the like. Those who reconciled them with a deity (or deities in the plural early on) could get back to the business of surviving. The earliest "scientists" were probably killed off because their curiosity distracted them too much.

There's also strong sociological and biological evidence that taking part in shared activities (early religious rituals and rites) increases cooperativeness. So being a part of a coherent community and doing similar things helped ensure survival as well. Religion provided the outlet for those advantages.

Basically, belief is programmed into us because it helped us survive...and we're not so far removed from that time as a species that natural selection has been able to do anything about it.

...that's it in a nutshell. There's other factors but those are major ones.

...

Originally posted by The MISTER
For myself I can speak for personal experiences lending what appears to be evidence for a being capable of hearing me and controlling a trillion universes easily. Since it is an experience that I've had repeatedly,asking for blessings, I'd literally be lying to say something that didn't include personal faith in God enough to ask for specific things in the same way I'd ask a physical being I could see. I can't help but to be appreciative when I receive what I've asked for repeatedly( understandably) I become hard pressed to betray the giver of these perceived blessing by denying that I asked them as if they existed. The longer people live the more opportunity they have to have personal experiences that they attribute to something supernatural.

By the same coin, the longer people live, the more opportunity they have to have personal experiences where they understand the physical causes underlying those experiences, which don't require a supernatural explanation. You could live for a thousand years and see a million miracles given to you by God. And another person could live that same life and see a million outcomes that require no special explanation outside the deterministic, material universe they find themselves in.

Also, what have you asked for that you think the outcome of those requests is evidence for a being that can control - and I quote - "a trillion universes easily"?? Those must have been some insane prayer requests.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It's not the act of demonstrating how it originates that makes it false (evolutionary origins), it's the lack of evidence for it that makes it likely to be false. He is setting up a straw man.

I've been reading some of Dawkins' The God Delusion and one theory of how our minds became gullible toward belief in superstitious ideas is that as children we had to trust adults in the natural world and children don't really know the difference between good ideas and bad ideas, such as not going near the water's edge for fear of crocodiles (good idea) vs. "you must sacrifice a goat at the time of the full moon otherwise the rains will fail is at best a waste of time and goats" (bad idea).

This is a good point. I saw this too, either in The God Delusion or elsewhere, and it relates somewhat to my earlier evolutionary point. Being inherently trusting sets us up for survival success as children in ways that skepticism wouldn't.

Your example of good/bad ideas relates to all this as well in other ways. We experience false positives in beliefs all the time (i.e. "that goat sacrifice made it rain!" because early in our species' development, that was advantageous over false negatives (i.e. "that rustling in the bush over there is probably nothing, and certainly not a tiger that can kill me". Or in modern times, "that cupcake looks like Jesus!" or "Everyone Aunt Rita prays for gets a job. She started praying for me, and just a couple months later I got one. God is good!"

I use that last example deliberately. Had a great-aunt who'd pray for all kinds of family members to get jobs when they were out of work - and for a brief period I was the recipient of her prayers. Wonderful woman, unfortunately deceased now. And she truly believed it was working. I tend to think it was my practice of applying for an average of one job a day minimum (over a three-month period I was well into triple digits, covering multiple cities I would have moved to), research into interview skills and companies' hiring practices, and tweaking my application subtly to better match each and every job I applied to, rather than simply spamming the same one to all jobs. There's a phrase that's hilarious to me that I hear repeated by Christians in my life: "God helps those who help themselves." It's at odds with the entire idea of prayer and faith, but no one really thinks too hard about it. But they instinctively realize that it's their own effort that will get them the desired outcome. For which they might then thank God for the willpower or strength to have done it (again darkly amusing to me). Or if it doesn't work out, they say God's testing them or has other plans for them. It's self-fulfilling. God's just a placeholder to thank for whatever happens, in whatever way it happens.

But who knows...maybe it was Aunt Rita's prayers after all.

The answer is because your parents tend to raise you in their religion, and then you follow suit, and your children follow suit, and so on and so on. People usually do not break away.

I was baptized at a young age, before I could talk or think for myself. Wasn't given a choice. Shit like that? Is why we have more theists IMO. There was also a time in the world where if you weren't a theist you'd be killed. Those traditions were kept up even after that threat disappeared.

That and Atheist at their core got NOTHING to offer anyone.


Other then the old joke about Getting To Sleep in On Sundays.

Yeah, a lot of people can't handle the idea that we can't actually explain a lot of the phenomena that happens or what is the major purpose of life, so they say "God did it" as a way of self-satisfaction.

And also the use of religion to enforce one's own moral code has it's perks, too.

Yeah because people with OUT Religion never go around trying to enforce THEIR Morality on others....or their Lack of Morality as is the case sometimes.

Ge45R9qoW_Y

If you have to reference Seth Macfarlane......