Are you an atheist?

[Fifty2One]

In your dreams. I enjoy a nice break at Christmas even if it doesn't have any religious significance for me. If they want me to work then they will have to pay a good premium.

Christmas doesn't have any religious significance according to your beliefs so if you refuse to work that day that can be grounds for dismissal.

 

[CraigDolphin]

Too much has been said for me to have the time to rebut all the points I disagree with. I actually have work to do so I have to keep this as short as possible.

1) If you've never known that way of thinking to begin with, why would you search for knowledge? Far easier to accept what your parents and theirs before them have said. There's also an aspect of 'the king's new clothes' about it.

If the trait to 'explain the inexplicable by invoking god(s)' is false, and leads to substituting the search for real answers with inaction/prayer as you contend, then this can only be viewed as a trait that decreases fitness. Consequently, if parental belief is a strong factor in the formation of a childs belief (thus making the trait heritable) and such belief is disadvantageous, then natural selection should have selected against it very early on in the game. Parental/societal transmission is not a rebuttal of that logic, it merely provides a mechanism for non-genetic heritability of the trait which only supports the idea that natural selection should operate against religion.

And I think the new clothes belonged to an emperor, incidentally, and I have to wonder if his name wasn't 'Dawkins'

2) Throughout history there have been people who famously came out and said what turned out to be correct, but who were punished for it, as it went against the norm. If you had the foresight to realise that the earth revolved around the sun, and Torquemada asked you about it, there's a fair chance you'd keep your mouth shut about your ideas and just go with the church's line of thinking.

True. The majority of people have historically always gone with the flow of prevailing 'authoritarian' opinion, whether that opinion turned out to be right or not. I think the same is true today of the vast majority of university graduates who have accepted the currently prevalent atheist philosophy of science as it was taught to them. And I'll lay a wager that 1,000 years from now, if anyone is still around and not bombed back into the stone age by the next world war, that they will look back on the prevailing attitudes and state of knowledge of today with just as much bemusement as we do with those of medieval europe.

3) There have always been people who can use the fact that one or other of the gods *ahem* 'spoke to them' as justification to do whatever they wanted -whether it was taking lands from godless savages or just trying to get votes - knowing full well that they could then say that anyone who disagreed with them was disagreeing with god.

Yep. Sad but true. Evil (IMO) people have always used whatever they felt they needed to use to enable their own ambitions. Just like Nazi Germany and the G.O.P. have used nationalistic zealotry to enable pre-emptive war on nations that did not attack them. Just like history shows us that tribal/racial/clan tensions/fears have historically been used to justify genocide, slavery, and murder. Just like scum rapists misuse their knowledge of chemistry to drug and ra** unsuspecting women in bars by secretly spiking their drinks. Just like many other things that can and should be constructive, religion can be used as an instrument of evil.

As I've stated before, I believe strongly in separation of church and state for exactly that reason. When worldly power is at stake, the wrong kind of people are attracted to religion who will misuse it.

_____________________

Earlier Alisa asked me to specify what religious explanations exist for the big 'Why' questions that don't exist elsewhere. You did not repond to my request for information about what other explanations exist. I asked this question because I don't really know what non-religious explanations exist for the big 'Why' questions and it's kinda hard to answer your question without that piece of information. I can speculate about religious explanations for some of the big 'Why' questions if you like, but I can't compare A to B if I don't know anything about B. And since there are a lot of big 'Why' Questions that could be asked, it would be helpful to know which ones you're referring to here.

In short, it seems you're asking to me to provide all the answers to all the big Why questions from a religious worldview, then do the same from a non-religious worldview, then compare and contrast the lists of questions and answers and give you a short list of answers from one set that aren't found in the other.

You don't think that's a bit unreasonable for a forum discussion do you? This isn't a PhD thesis on philosophy, after all.

So, since the only explained answer to life, the universe, and everything that I'm aware of (from a secular view) is '42', then I'd offer one alternative religious theory instead: The universe exists as it is because God wants it to exist as it is.

If you want me to do more work than that then you're going to have to do your share as well. Fair enough?

EDIT: I mistakenly attributed the quotes in this post to Alisa. These were actually made by Alc. I apologize for the error.

 

[Alisa]

You just misquoted me three times. None of the quotes where you wrote "posted by Alisa" were written by me. Those were someone else's posts. Did you do that or is the forum messing up?

As far as the meaning of life, I am content that life has no "greater" purpose. I find meaning in my life through my family and my work, through marveling at the beauty of nature, and last but not least, through posting on internet forums. That is enough for me. When I am dead I will be dead and that is that. There is no greater purpose than to make the most of life while it lasts. As far as the purpose of life in general, as opposed to the purpose of my life, it is survival. We and all living organisms have evolved to survive. You talked about how not seeking the truth would be an evolutionary disadvantage, but you forget that only adapatations that directly affect your survival and hence your ability to reproduce are selected for or against. Everything else is just side affects - it doesn't have anything to do with fitness, and that is why there is no selection against it.

If the purpose of life according to religion is "god wants it that way", as you state, then it seems to me that religion provides a less satisfying answer than the one I have provided above. You claim that we NEED religion to answer these questions. If that is the best religion can do, then I pass.

 

[KenHigg]

When I am dead I will be dead and that is that.

Nah... We'll still be mis-quoting you.

 

[Alisa]

Nah... We'll still be mis-quoting you.

What a comforting thought
Now my life really does have a greater purpose.

 

[KenHigg]

Nice to know I made a contribution -

What part of colorado are you in? Last time I was out there about 10 years ago we went to the drag races at bandimere speedway...

 

[Alisa]

Nice to know I made a contribution -

What part of colorado are you in? Last time I was out there about 10 years ago we went to the drag races at bandimere speedway...

I am SW of denver - never been to the speedway though.

 

[Alc]

If the trait to 'explain the inexplicable by invoking god(s)' is false, and leads to substituting the search for real answers with inaction/prayer as you contend, then this can only be viewed as a trait that decreases fitness.

It is, in many cases. If only in the sense that once someone accepts that God is the reason for everything being as it is, they are far more predisposed to stop looking for less magical reasons. They are also, in many cases, less inclined to attempt to change or take responsibility for their current situation. What would be the point? If God wants you to suffer you will, in spite of your best efforts.

You see situations all the time where someone is involved in an accident due to negligence and says it was God's will that it happened. An ability to accept a lack of effort and/or care on one's own part and instead ascribe it to the intervetaon of a mystical being can't be seen as much other than a weakness.

Consequently, if parental belief is a strong factor in the formation of a childs belief (thus making the trait heritable) and such belief is disadvantageous, then natural selection should have selected against it very early on in the game.

Some may say it's happening, albeit slowly. Otherwise, why would the number of people claiming to be religious - and, in particular, attending church - be on the decline.

 

[CraigDolphin]

You just misquoted me three times.

Erk...Alisa, I apologize unreservedly. I was scanning through the numerous posts since yesterday and mistook a post by Alc as one of yours. I screwed that up and I apologize. I will fix that mistaken attributions as soon as this post is done.

And Alc, it is exactly that decrease in fitness if belief in God is false, and or leads to less search for truth, that supports my contention that it should have vanished long ago due to natural selection. So either the idea that it is false, or that it leads to less searching for truth, is wrong, or the whole concept of natural selection is badly flawed. Personally, I don't think that the latter is the case.

 

[Rabbie]

Christmas doesn't have any religious significance according to your beliefs so if you refuse to work that day that can be grounds for dismissal.

In the UK Christmas and Boxing Day are Public Holidays and so are covered by my contract of employment. Other people I know who have to work at Christmas receive a generous premium up to 4 times the usual rate + a day off in lieu.

 

[Alc]

And Alc, it is exactly that decrease in fitness if belief in God is false, and or leads to less search for truth, that supports my contention that it should have vanished long ago due to natural selection. So either the idea that it is false, or that it leads to less searching for truth, is wrong, or the whole concept of natural selection is badly flawed. Personally, I don't think that the latter is the case.

That assumes natural selection operates that quickly.
As I say, the number of religious people does seem to be on the decline, so perhaps it's just happening at the same slow rate most other evolutionary changes are thought to have occurred.

 

[Rich]

Bible contradictions answered.....this is for Rich

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX

How odd, the one about Adam and Eve is missing, along with many more

 

[Rich]

Nah... We'll still be mis-quoting you.

That won't be a first for you though, will it?

 

[Alc]

How odd, the one about Adam and Eve is missing, along with many more

Try this one
www.wemadeitallupaswewentalong.com

 

[Alisa]

Erk...Alisa, I apologize unreservedly. I was scanning through the numerous posts since yesterday and mistook a post by Alc as one of yours. I screwed that up and I apologize. I will fix that mistaken attributions as soon as this post is done.

And Alc, it is exactly that decrease in fitness if belief in God is false, and or leads to less search for truth, that supports my contention that it should have vanished long ago due to natural selection. So either the idea that it is false, or that it leads to less searching for truth, is wrong, or the whole concept of natural selection is badly flawed. Personally, I don't think that the latter is the case.

No problem.
Yes, but you are assuming that the search for truth is evolutionarily advantageous. I don't think that is necessarily correct. In fact, I remember reading something a long time ago, can't remember what exactly, and it proposed that religion may have advantaged survival of the group if not the individual because many religions pool resources and help those in need. This doesn't fall under natural selection because you are not talking about genes that are getting passed down from one successful individual to another. Instead, you are talking about ideas that are getting passed on within a successful GROUP. If you look at it this way, there is no reason that natural selection would work to eliminate religious belief.

As far as the current decline in religion that we are seeing, I think that has much more to do with the explosion of information and media sources than it does with natural selection. Religious institutions used to be much more important in terms of providing a gathering place, teaching values, etc., than they are today.

 

[CraigDolphin]

Yes, but you are assuming that the search for truth is evolutionarily advantageous.

Yes. I think that, on average, if you understand the world you live in accurately, you'll be more likely to survive than someone who doesn't.

I understand your good for the group argument, and I have quite a bit of sympathy with it. But as I recall, natural selection does not act on groups, it acts on individuals. Groups are composed of individuals and if individuals who 'believe' do less well than those that don't, then there ought to be a decline in the relative frequency of believers over time.

Your reasoning that "ideas that are getting passed on within a successful GROUP" seems to conflict with your contention that 'parental' influence is the dominant factor in whether a child believes or not. If you are right that religion is wrong and causes believers to not seek to understand the world accurately, and parents pass on their belief to their kids, then natural selection MUST act against religion at the level of the individual.

So why would a group of believing individuals arise and prosper in the first place?

And even if you accept the idea that such a group could form, why should it prosper relative to other groups of individuals who choose/evolve to behave in the same ways that are beneficial for the group (altruism etc) without this apparently erroneous belief system to drag down their individual fitness?

And this brings us back to an earlier contention of yours. If religion is good for groups, as you are claiming in this context, why have you previously claimed it was bad for society?

It seems to me that there are a alot of apparent contradictions in assertions you make to advance your worldview.

And to be clear, I wasn't meaning that the current decline of religion is due to natural selection. (And I won't go into my thoughts on that topic here). My comments are intended as a generic discussion of how is it that such a trait still exists in human society if it is based on a false premise AND it leads to people not trying to discern the truth about the world around them, as you have suggested, when natural selection would act against it if those assertions were true.

 

[Fifty2One]

In the UK Christmas and Boxing Day are Public Holidays and so are covered by my contract of employment. Other people I know who have to work at Christmas receive a generous premium up to 4 times the usual rate + a day off in lieu.

WOW that is pretty big payola to cover up religious prejudice. So is it your employer or the state that is forcing you by contract to follow a calendar against your religious wishes?

 

[Mick Jagger]

The founding fathers were atheists.

 

[Alisa]

Yes. I think that, on average, if you understand the world you live in accurately, you'll be more likely to survive than someone who doesn't.

Why? That is true in an immediate physical sense - if I understand a bite from that snake will kill me, yes, that bit of truth does help me survive. But does the search for answers to larger questions, like the meaning of life, really benefit survival?

I understand your good for the group argument, and I have quite a bit of sympathy with it. But as I recall, natural selection does not act on groups, it acts on individuals. Groups are composed of individuals and if individuals who 'believe' do less well than those that don't, then there ought to be a decline in the relative frequency of believers over time.

I specifically said this would NOT be a case of natural selection at all. My argument is that while the propensity to believe may be genetically inherited, the specific beliefs are incidental to the culture, they are not genetic at all, and are therefor not selected for or against by natural selection. The point here is that the ideas may be kept on for generations because they benefit the group as a whole, not any one member of the group.

Your reasoning that "ideas that are getting passed on within a successful GROUP" seems to conflict with your contention that 'parental' influence is the dominant factor in whether a child believes or not. If you are right that religion is wrong and causes believers to not seek to understand the world accurately, and parents pass on their belief to their kids, then natural selection MUST act against religion at the level of the individual.

Why must it conflict? The parents live within the group, and most likely share the beliefs of their group. As I have said several times already, natural selection is only going to act if there is a genetic trait that either positively or negatively affects survival. I don't think religious belief negatively affects survival. In fact, one could make an argument that religous belief positively affects survival and reproduction, at least for the catholics

So why would a group of believing individuals arise and prosper in the first place?

Someone made up a really compelling story.

And even if you accept the idea that such a group could form, why should it prosper relative to other groups of individuals who choose/evolve to behave in the same ways that are beneficial for the group (altruism etc) without this apparently erroneous belief system to drag down their individual fitness?

I don't think they have prospered relative to other groups. All I said is that belonging to a group, any group, seems to enhance survival. Religion just happens to be a powerful way of keeping people within a group, what with fear of hell and whatnot.

And this brings us back to an earlier contention of yours. If religion is good for groups, as you are claiming in this context, why have you previously claimed it was bad for society?

Because while the group aspect of it is good for survival in one sense, it also leads to conflicts between different groups. As the earth has become more and more populated, the earth keeps getting smaller, and we keep bumping into eachother more and more. What would benefit society at this point is to set aside our different "beliefs" and focus on what we all have in common. Unfortunately old habits are hard to break.

 

[KenHigg]

Check the banner ad for this thread:

Are You A Real Atheist ?
Or Are You Just Pretending ? Test If You Have The God Gene

Maybe Alisa should take the test