Are you an atheist?

[Rich]

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

How odd I've got jobs for vba etc adds, not the bible puncher ones?

 

[Alisa]

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

I don't see it - they must have different banner ads for different people

 

[Rich]

Correction I've just got a link to this garbage,
http://celestialmechanic.com/
I wish Google ads would concentrate on the real world

 

[KenHigg]

I don't see it - they must have different banner ads for different people

I guess since you're so adamant on your stance they figure there's no sense in bothering you -

 

[Alisa]

I guess since you're so adamant on your stance they figure there's no sense in bothering you -

Actually I see it now that I opened a new window. I would do it, but it looks like a scam to get email addresses. Like I need MORE spam.

 

[CraigDolphin]

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?

Erm, did you not contend that belief in religion increases the chance that people will stop looking for 'real' answers and just lazily assume some supernatural cause/solution instead?

For example, your computer analogy ...

A THEIST would be like someone who is having problems with Access functions and chooses to completely ignore that they might have a problem with Windows or their computer or their code, and instead of researching and fixing the problem, kneels down at his computer and prays for god to fix it.

Assuming I got the attribution right this time , that's the kind of scenario of yours that I was referring to. This doesn't involve the quest for answers to the 'big' questions about life, the universe, and everything at all and I'm puzzled by why you would make that link. I'm not making that link here. Here, I am talking about the scenario you painted where learning about the universe we live in is reduced by faith in God/god(s).

they are not genetic at all, and are therefor not selected for or against by natural selection.

I think you're mistaken here. For natural selection to occur you need two things.
1.Traits that influence survival of an individual.
2.That those traits be heritable (that is, passed on from one individual to another)

Heritablilty is usually used in a genetic context to refer to traits (phenotypes) that arise from DNA that is passed down from one generation to the next (genotypes). However, there is no logical basis for confining this concept to a genetic context only. For example, the exact same natural selection principles have been employed in computer modelling to develop artificial intelligence.

Natural selection requires traits that vary in their phenotype, and can be passed on from one individual to the next. DNA is the vector for that propagation biologically, math is the vector in computer models, and language/ideas are the vector in societal models. The logic of natural selection does not depend on the vector used to pass along traits.

Someone made up a really compelling story.

and if it were wrong then that person, and whoever believed them should be less likely to survive and pass along the story than people who don;t hear it, or don't believe it. QED

 

[Rabbie]

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?

I don't think you followed what I was saying. My contract of employment gives me paid time off on public holidays - some religious like Christmas and Easter, other secular like New Years day and 1st Monday in May. If they want people to work at Christmas they have to pay a premium to get volunteers. No force that I can see.

As a historic note Christmas Day was just another working day in Scotland upto the 1950s even for religious people.

 

[Mick Jagger]

The men who made the U. S. Constitution must have been atheists because they didn't even acknowledge the existence of God in the document.

 

[Alisa]

Erm, did you not contend that belief in religion increases the chance that people will stop looking for 'real' answers and just lazily assume some supernatural cause/solution instead?

For example, your computer analogy ...



Assuming I got the attribution right this time , that's the kind of scenario of yours that I was referring to. This doesn't involve the quest for answers to the 'big' questions about life, the universe, and everything at all and I'm puzzled by why you would make that link. I'm not making that link here. Here, I am talking about the scenario you painted where learning about the universe we live in is reduced by faith in God/god(s).

Yes you got the attribution right this time
How does that have anything to do with SURVIVAL though?

and if it were wrong then that person, and whoever believed them should be less likely to survive and pass along the story than people who don;t hear it, or don't believe it. QED

Again you are missing a HUGE link here. If they were wrong, and they were, so what? How would that influence their survival?

The point of the original argument is that the propensity to believe authorities is evolutionarily advantageous. The side affect that people have RELIGIOUS beliefs, as oposed to any other sort of belief, doesn't seem to affect survival one way or another, and in any case, is not a genetic trait. Therefore, natural selection is not selecting against (or for) religious people.

 

[CraigDolphin]

How does that have anything to do with SURVIVAL though?

Ok. Subsititute this scenario with one involving praying that lions won't kill them versus learning how lions find their prey and using that information to avoid being found and eaten.

Or to use that particular example, you fail to do your job correctly so you get sacked and a bad reference to go with it from your former employer. Your significant-other dumps you for RuralGuy, who got your job and a nice pay raise for doing it right (he's a guru after all). No one else wants to date a jobless loser and you get depressed and kill yourself. Or you stay alive and become a smelly drunk. Or you just can't find anyone to breed with you. and no one wants to share in your original belief system since it clearly hasn;t done you much good has it?

Whatever the scenario might be, survival of your genes, by genetic trasfer to a new generation, or transmission of ideas, can both be adversely affected by incorrect information. Natural selection works on the principle that over time, even a slight fitness cost will result in the trait responsible being selected against and removed from the population. If you can't grasp that simple principle then we're at yet another impasse.

It doesn't have to happen all the time, nor does it have to be immediately fatal, for NS to work.

 

[Friday]

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...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.

At last, a post I can agree 100% with. Modern religion wastes too much. Too much life, money, energy...

BTW, if you do some research, you can find all of the beliefs in modern Christianity have been "borrowed" from much earlier pagan beliefs. Heaven and hell, healing, born of a virgin, it's all there.

The only reason Christianity became so popular (IMO) was timing. The most powerful force in the region (Rome) adopted it. (and forced it down the throats of millions of people...still doing it today).

I grew tired many years ago of folks telling me I had to have faith in order to understand why 3 year old children get ran over by trucks, or 13 year old girls get gang-raped, or why 100,000 people die in a storm...what the heck kind of "god" would allow that stuff to happen? Really!

I cannot find the Bible any more beliveable than I can The Lord of the Rings. So, on that note, let's all visit this site and get our Hobbit names!

 

[ShaneMan]

I grew tired many years ago of folks telling me I had to have faith in order to understand why 3 year old children get ran over by trucks, or 13 year old girls get gang-raped, or why 100,000 people die in a storm...what the hell kind of "god" would allow that shit to happen? Really!

Just a thought, Friday, but maybe the kind of "god" that would allow these things to happen would/could be the same one that has listened to everyone say they don't want to believe in him, don't want their children to pray to him, don't want to have anything to do with him, do not want to obey his laws, so he has said fine, then do it without my interference and now these folks get to live with the consequences of what they said they wanted. Just a thought (and of course this is based on "if" there is/was a god)

 

[Mike375]

I grew tired many years ago of folks telling me I had to have faith in order to understand why 3 year old children get ran over by trucks, or 13 year old girls get gang-raped, or why 100,000 people die in a storm...what the hell kind of "god" would allow that shit to happen? Really!

That has no bearing on whether a supernatural exists. However, you are not the first and you won't be the last person to raise that issue.

Some possible explanations.

1) There is no God.
2) There is a God but He only kick started things and then let nature take its course.
3) There is a God but there is no possibility that humans could even begin to understand a motive for His actions or lack of actions.
4) God does not exist but a god does exist. That removes all relationships with Bible etc. Who is to say a god has to be good? Hitler was not exactly the best fellow but no one denies he existed.

If God or a god exists then I think your scenarios are easily answered.

So we are back to the fundamental issue of.......is there a supernatural....

Both sides of the argument are based on faith. In my opinion the current state of science makes the science answer a greater leap in faith. There are couple of simple reason for this.

1) Science has given the show a beginning with the Big Bang and in addition has said all physics and time breaks down, does not exist, so science has bailed out.
2) The Big Bang is not true. If that turns out to be the case then it is just another case of science being wrong in this area.

For someone to 100% exclude the possibility of a supernatural is very illogical. One reason being that 100% excludes the possibility of life forms in the universe that are higher than man.

Someone did ask earlier in the thread about a definition of a supernatural. Well, compared to the small lizard or ant in the garden a man is a supernatural. All the ant's instinct's tell it there is no rain about but the man decides to water the garden To say that man is the highest in the universe requires a huge leap in faith. But that is required if you 100% exclude a supernatural.

To take the analogy with the lizard one step further. The lizard knows the deal when it sees a mouse or a fly. The mouse and the fly also know the deal and because it has been repeated over and over through their lives. It is their "science" because it is predictable. They have been teaching it to their young for eons of time.

However, if the man sets a mouse trap then the mouse's mates are at total loss as to what happened to their mate. The lizard is equally confused with the loss of his prey. To confuse the issue one of the lizards also gets caught in one of the mouse traps. Yet the dealers in death are lifeless. They don't eat their prey. Impossible.

No matter how much experience the lizard and mice gain they will never be able to cover the man's next move. In other words their "science" will never cater for or predict what the man will do next and hence man is a supernatural.

Does anyone of this thread seriously believe that man is the highest form in the universe? That is what you need to believe to 100% exclude a supernatural from the equation.

 

[Rich]

Well, compared to the small lizard or ant in the garden a man is a supernatural. All the ant's instinct's tell it there is no rain about but the man decides to water the garden .

Then by your definition an Elephant would be supernatural to an ant simply because it's larger and more intelligent, but then of course you're assuming that an ant has the ability to think in the first place

 

[Rabbie]

Ok. Subsititute this scenario with one involving praying that lions won't kill them versus learning how lions find their prey and using that information to avoid being found and eaten.

From my memories of having the bible forced down my throat at school I remember several stories from the OT where people killed lions that were attacking their flocks. Perhaps their belief system gave them the courage to do this. On the subject of praying that lions won't kill you perhaps it was the fact Daniel remained calm in the lion'd den that stopped him from being killed. Lions like most predators respond to signs of panic and fear in their prey.

Or to use that particular example, you fail to do your job correctly so you get sacked and a bad reference to go with it from your former employer. Your significant-other dumps you for RuralGuy, who got your job and a nice pay raise for doing it right (he's a guru after all). No one else wants to date a jobless loser and you get depressed and kill yourself. Or you stay alive and become a smelly drunk. Or you just can't find anyone to breed with you. and no one wants to share in your original belief system since it clearly hasn;t done you much good has it?

I have never noticed particularly poor performance from believers compared to atheists in the work place. Many christians are in fact hardworking conscientious people. Perhaps you know different

Whatever the scenario might be, survival of your genes, by genetic trasfer to a new generation, or transmission of ideas, can both be adversely affected by incorrect information. Natural selection works on the principle that over time, even a slight fitness cost will result in the trait responsible being selected against and removed from the population. If you can't grasp that simple principle then we're at yet another impasse.

It doesn't have to happen all the time, nor does it have to be immediately fatal, for NS to work.

So far you have not shown any reason why believers are les unfit (in the evolutionary sense) than other people. I can certainly see advantages to society in having organised religions so in that sense it is perhaps more surprising that atheism is flourishing.

As I have said before there have been many flourishing religions whose beliefs differ greatly from each other - even down to the number of gods they worship. So many of these religions must be false so flourishing is not proof of the truth of a religion

 

[Darth Vodka]

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?

it's hardly religious prejudice, it's *lack* of religious prejudice

the UK bank holidays are largely based upon christian holidays (well christmas was originally the pagan winter solstice holiday, hijacked by christianity)

in fact because of the early Easter this year, there were murmurs of discontent over here that they should just standardise the bank holidays to a set weekend

the 30% of the UK that isn't christian mostly celebrate christmas

 

[Mike375]

Then by your definition an Elephant would be supernatural to an ant simply because it's larger and more intelligent, but then of course you're assuming that an ant has the ability to think in the first place

Not so. The elephant is predictable for the ant. The chimp is also predictable. On the other hand man is across another threshold and as a result operates in a totally different world.

 

[Mike375]

I can certainly see advantages to society in having organised religions so in that sense it is perhaps more surprising that atheism is flourishing.

There are a couple of reasons why atheism does not flourish. The first is that most people don't think too much about it or superatural one way or the other. The average person thinks...something is out there.....and they will go along with formal religions as a social situation, schools etc and leave it at that. The second reason is that people who do think about these matters simply have experiences which lead to the belief of an outside force or whatever you want to call it. On the other hand atheism is not something that will strengthen due to experiences, at least not for most people. I have been on the atheist side of the fence twice and both times it died on the vine. Of course if I was a person who wanted atheism as a statement of postition then I would have maintained atheism.

Perhaps the biggest reason atheism does not flourish is simple human nature. Long before evolution or Stephen Hawking were heard of human nature has been such that we are not top of the tree.

People also like quick answers and then put the problem to bed. They don't want to spend the rest of their life based on some statement of position. If they decide to investigate it won't take them long to realise Hawking and Co is a dead end and that confirms what they were already thinking...something is out there.

As I have said before there have been many flourishing religions whose beliefs differ greatly from each other - even down to the number of gods they worship. So many of these religions must be false so flourishing is not proof of the truth of a religion

Not proof of a specific religion but they all have a common core....a supernatural.

 

[Rabbie]

Not proof of a specific religion but they all have a common core....a supernatural.

Correction - a belief in a supernatural. But beliefs in different supernaturals.

For example
Judaism/Islam - belief in a single god
Christianity - belief in a single god who is actually 3. Try and explain that!
Hinduism - belief in several gods
etc etc

Apart from your issue with lizard --> snake do you accept evolution?

 

[Mike375]

Correction - a belief in a supernatural. But beliefs in different supernaturals.

For example
Judaism/Islam - belief in a single god
Christianity - belief in a single god who is actually 3. Try and explain that!
Hinduism - belief in several gods
etc etc

But none of them are atheism. One atheist might follow Big Bang but another atheist might reject Big Bang. But both have the common core that a supernatural was not invlolved.

Apart from your issue with lizard --> snake do you accept evolution?

In the main Yes. I am maybe 90/10, perhaps even 95/5 on "life will begin if the conditions exist"

With Dawkins and others I think they are like their counterparts doing the Bible deal. Either side has the basic belief but they need to put it together as a package and that package is for the non thinking masses. Thus either is full of holes.

I think the lizard--->snake will be resolved as will many similar situations and the "answer" will not be related to supernatural etc. I suspect when the method for origin of life is establised that will clear up many things.

My guess is that the origin of life will be much simpler than people think and as a result there will many different origins. In other words the bird/dinosaur and lizard/snake etc did not share a commom ancestor.

At the moment it is not feasible for Dawkins and Co to go with lots of origins. That would undo much of the evolution talk. As you know evolution has very much as its basis the branches of the tree. In my opinion there were tree roots popping up everywhere.

So in summary I am 95% that life started inedependently of superanatural intervention. However, I put Dawkins and Co and the Bible people in the same league. Both have lots of truths but are missing on some big issues and of course funding will maintain much of that situation.