Atheism and faith

[Davros of Skaro]

5 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

You know what? 

Y'all win.

You've discovered the BIG ATHEIST SECRET!

We all meet and bow down to statues of Darwin,, Sagan, And Galileo. We sacrifice little white mice on little teeny tiny altars and drink 180 proof rum from beakers.

We have orgies with every conceivable combination of gender (and some inconceivable ones too), because we LOVE to SIN!

 

Are you all satisfied now?

You forgot the food of heathens.

[Mr Walker]

16 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Not necisarrily its not impossible that someone could grow up oblivious to religion. 

I think it would be an honor and a gift myself, but that's just me. 

A person who grew up without outside religion,like someone raised by robots programmed not to allow any contact with religions, would inevitably develop their own personal religion,or set of beliefs,  to enable their survival in a world where their mind raised unanswerable questions.   Studies have shown that young children raised by atheists have the same degree of belief in magical agents or gods, as those raised by theists

They build this belief internally, from  observations and deductions  at a very young age, and this tendency never leaves humans, even as adults. We can learn to ignore it and to think in other ways, as we get older, but his is actually quite hard to achieve . 

Religions and beliefs do not come from "outside." 

Initially, they are constructed internally, although as a child gets old enough to learn to speak and understand,   it might adopt the beliefs and religion of those around it ,  building these into its own, home grown, beliefs . . 

No  functioning human grows up without pondering the existence of "gods," although, as children, they might not name these entities as gods  Experts call them agents  Very young children believe that the world abounds with active, self directed, and purposeful agents, who are responsible for all changes, and activities, in the world.

This is the same magical thinking found in all primitive human kind. 

In their minds, and with their knowledge, it is the only thing which makes sense of what they observe.   

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

A person who grew up without outside religion,like someone raised by robots programmed not to allow any contact with religions, would inevitably develop their own personal religion,or set of beliefs,  to enable their survival in a world where their mind raised unanswerable questions.   Studies have shown that young children raised by atheists have the same degree of belief in magical agents or gods, as those raised by theists

They build this belief internally, from  observations and deductions  at a very young age, and this tendency never leaves humans, even as adults. We can learn to ignore it and to think in other ways, as we get older, but his is actually quite hard to achieve . 

Religions and beliefs do not come from "outside." 

Initially, they are constructed internally, although as a child gets old enough to learn to speak and understand,   it might adopt the beliefs and religion of those around it ,  building these into its own, home grown, beliefs . . 

No  functioning human grows up without pondering the existence of "gods," although, as children, they might not name these entities as gods  Experts call them agents  Very young children believe that the world abounds with active, self directed, and purposeful agents, who are responsible for all changes, and activities, in the world.

This is the same magical thinking found in all primitive human kind. 

In their minds, and with their knowledge, it is the only thing which makes sense of what they observe.   

I was thinking more a bushfolk situation. Little or no contact with an outside world. Or like a Inuit life. Long hard days that need to be filled with activities to survive without the spare time to waste on creating imaginary beings. 

 

 

Look, I know you say that you believe all that, but I don't. I really don't think children construct gods, I think they may have all sorts of constructs which is really just imagination. I feel studies have been misinterpreted and that some adults have prohectex their beliefs into an unknown space. 

And they grow out of it. 

I don't for a second accept that anyone 'needs' belief, and I honestly feel its a fault or weakness of the species. I like to think there will be a day when gods are made redundant and the term atheist will be too  just like we dont have 'aunicornists' today. The term like the ideology should one day fade into obscurity. 

And dont bother posting reams of badly pasted articles. When you do paste something in the text box that is  formatted text a link shows up at the bottom of the editor offering to convert it to plain text. 

For all our sakes, find the dam thing and use it would you. 

If you really feel compelled to copy and paste, at least keep it to one relevant paragraph and offer a link like most posters do. It's just good manners. 

[danydandan]

32 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

A person who grew up without outside religion,like someone raised by robots programmed not to allow any contact with religions, would inevitably develop their own personal religion,or set of beliefs,  to enable their survival in a world where their mind raised unanswerable questions.   Studies have shown that young children raised by atheists have the same degree of belief in magical agents or gods, as those raised by theists

They build this belief internally, from  observations and deductions  at a very young age, and this tendency never leaves humans, even as adults. We can learn to ignore it and to think in other ways, as we get older, but his is actually quite hard to achieve . 

Religions and beliefs do not come from "outside." 

Initially, they are constructed internally, although as a child gets old enough to learn to speak and understand,   it might adopt the beliefs and religion of those around it ,  building these into its own, home grown, beliefs . . 

No  functioning human grows up without pondering the existence of "gods," although, as children, they might not name these entities as gods  Experts call them agents  Very young children believe that the world abounds with active, self directed, and purposeful agents, who are responsible for all changes, and activities, in the world.

This is the same magical thinking found in all primitive human kind. 

In their minds, and with their knowledge, it is the only thing which makes sense of what they observe.   

That's clearly not true, look at the Pirahã and come back to me when you see them constructing a God's. And spirts aren't God's to them in case you bring that up.

Edited June 21, 2018 by danydandan

[Mr Walker]

13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I was thinking more a bushfolk situation. Little or no contact with an outside world. Or like a Inuit life. Long hard days that need to be filled with activities to survive without the spare time to waste on creating imaginary beings. 

 

 

Look, I know you say that you believe all that, but I don't. I really don't think children construct gods, I think they may have all sorts of constructs which is really just imagination. I feel studies have been misinterpreted and that some adults have prohectex their beliefs into an unknown space. 

And they grow out of it. 

I don't for a second accept that anyone 'needs' belief, and I honestly feel its a fault or weakness of the species. I like to think there will be a day when gods are made redundant and the term atheist will be too  just like we dont have 'aunicornists' today. The term like the ideology should one day fade into obscurity. 

And dont bother posting reams of badly pasted articles. When you do paste something in the text box that is  formatted text a link shows up at the bottom of the editor offering to convert it to plain text. 

For all our sakes, find the dam thing and use it would you. 

If you really feel compelled to copy and paste, at least keep it to one relevant paragraph and offer a link like most posters do. It's just good manners. 

Its not my belief.

it is based on studies all over the world by psychologists anthropologists linguists and other experts

In every place and culture, even before the y can speak, children are constructing imaginary beings to explain what they see occurring around them.

It is an abilty of the human mind and it is an evolved survival tool  to enable us to function, feel comfortable and safe, in an environment we cannot possibly understand.  What we cannot understand we fear, and thus we construct understandings so we don't have to fear, even where those understandings are false 

The same thing occurs with primitive people who construct gods to explain natural events.  No one has to teach them to do so because this explanation  is obvious to any mind  without scientific understanding.  We think that,  because we are thinking purposeful beings then those powerful elements of nature must also be like us.   

Sorry but i don't understand your complaint  My screen show easy to read and formatted  script, or i would change it.  It remains simple, formatted and easy to read after saving, and for ever after, as far as my screen appears   I always include a link, usually after the quote, as is academic standard  Ii don't use ibid, op cit, etc., and if there are two  quotes from the same source I only quote it once. Not sure what else i can do, as i cant SEE any problems like you mention, on screen .

Finally i use as much quote as is necessary to make a point Normally only a small fraction  of an article withe most significant points included 

I am sorry but if people cant read more than a paragraph or are too lazy to, that's not my problem 

ive reduced the length of my posts to accommodate lazy or poor readers. I've reduced the size of my paragraphs to accommodate people who struggle with following an argument in longer paragraphs, and I've even begun double spacing lines for those who struggle with what they see as "dense" blocks of text bu to debate  takes time and effort.  This is not face book or some media where a few lines, or a meme, makes a point.      

[Mr Walker]

33 minutes ago, danydandan said:

That's clearly not true, look at the Pirahã and come back to me when you see them constructing a God's. And spirts aren't God's to them in case you bring that up.

Ive studied the piraha. Read the original book and several of the following commentaries and analyses 

They do have "gods" Indeed they are certain that these gods are real physical powerful entities  who kill and do harm and must be avoided or propitiated.

This is a false argument, often used by atheists who claim that beliefs are passed down from  generation to generation  and are  not inherent in humans  and constructed by individual cognitive processes   it would be very strange if some small south american tribe were the only humans not to believe in gods  or have superstitious beliefs And of course, like all humans the y do and the y are very similar to those of most primitive peoples   

  Modern people tend to see gods as like the christian god But they began as spirits in animistic beliefs. So sprites nymphs dryads and fairies etc are all forms of supernatural beings or gods  The Piraha absolutely and strongly believe  in such god forms,

  In their case  these gods are very malevolent, like many early animist entities.

Christianity Judaism and islam are simply more evolved and sophisticated belief /religious forms but they originate in the same part of the mind as the piraha's beliefs  and serve a similar function.  The Norse, Egyptian, and other similar  beliefs, were transitional religions, as human understanding became more sophisticated. But the Sumerian beliefs involved spirits inhabiting every living thing and no division between the spiritual and material worlds   

What is more, the author and accuracy of the original study have been challenged, and some would argue . debunked, as having a non academic, ulterior motive 

The current dean of Bentley University (outside Boston) is a man called Daniel Everett, who claims to have been converted to atheism by the Pirahã people of Brazil. The problem with this is that Pirahã "atheism" is very different from Western atheism, and the Pirahã would not be considered atheists if they had originated in Europe. Let's compare Pirahã religion, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Greco-Roman religion.

Pirahã

No monotheistic creator god, but believe in deities associated with specific places and things (Xigagai is described as a "spirit" or "being" in the wiki but appears to be as much a god as Hera or Zeus).

Buddhism

No monotheistic creator god, but believe in a number of deities (there are a multitude of devas.

Hinduism

Similar to Buddhism in many instances, but with more powerful devas.

Greco/Roman religion

No monotheistic creator god, but believe in deities associated with specific places and things (Dionysus, the god of wine, is a classical example).

In short, Daniel Everett is either a fraud scientist, a fraud atheist, or a fraud convert.

This strange admixture of the spiritual and physical worlds highlights one of the most important facets of religious phenomena, one that is often concealed in Western academic discourse influenced by abstract theology and philosophy: for many people, spiritual realities are experienced, not speculated about. The Pirahã shrug off stories about Near Eastern religious visions, but they themselves often pointed out and had matter-of-fact conversations with spirits in the forest. 

What does this tell us about human religiosity? For starters, the claim that the Pirahã disprove the universality of religious beliefs may be a little premature, since spirits are as prominent a part of their world as post offices and street signs are of ours. Secondly, in order to understand religion properly, scholars might want to pay closer attention to the experiential aspect of religious phenomena – since, despite the fact that theologians usually talk about God as an abstract principle, many people's spiritual experiences are anything but abstract. To ignore this spiritual concreteness leaves the study of religion sorely lacking.

http://www.scienceonreligion.org/index.php/news-research/research-updates/259-south-american-society-offers-insight-into-spiritual-experience

 

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Mr Walker

[danydandan]

They don't believe in God's thsts a well established fact. They believe in spirts and spirituality. Everett even says so. He even became an Atheist due to interactions with the tribe. It's quite interesting.

https://www.ibcsr.org/index.php/institute-research-portals/quantifying-religious-experience-project/529-south-american-society-offers-insight-into-spiritual-experience

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/04/16/the-interpreter-2

They have no concept of a supreme being or a creator so no they do not have a God or have bothered to contemplate the notion of one or God's. There is a clear difference between Abrahamic God, God's and Spirts.

Edited June 21, 2018 by danydandan

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Its not my belief.

I think you do invest some belief in your conclusion. 

Quote

it is based on studies all over the world by psychologists anthropologists linguists and other experts

You posted one for me, but it didn't hint at gods being constructed. It said all sorts of constructs are imagined as they experience new things, but I don't remember any specific mention of God's. More like anything from chitty chitty bang bang to the purple people eater. And any parent I think would agree this reflects through language at that 'cute' stage from about 4-7.

Quote

In every place and culture, even before the y can speak, children are constructing imaginary beings to explain what they see occurring around them.

Some may, but I don't believe that is the case 100%of the time, which is the impression I get from your post. 

Quote

It is an abilty of the human mind and it is an evolved survival tool  to enable us to function, feel comfortable and safe, in an environment we cannot possibly understand.  What we cannot understand we fear, and thus we construct understandings so we don't have to fear, even where those understandings are false 

We have parents so that doesn't really make sense. We survive according to how our parents look after us. Babies don't have to compete in the wild, haven't for thousands of years. 

I have kids, 2 of them. I was lucky to get a girl and a  boy. I've never seen behaviour from them, or their friends to support what your claiming. 

Quote

The same thing occurs with primitive people who construct gods to explain natural events.  No one has to teach them to do so because this explanation  is obvious to any mind  without scientific understanding.  We think that,  because we are thinking purposeful beings then those powerful elements of nature must also be like us.

We are creative. That's all there is to that. Look at our own indigenous legends. They are pretty darn creative, but I can't help but wonder if original tellings were supposed to just be stories that have got out of hand to a ridiculous point, or if they were actually supposed to be real explanations. I think there may be a bit of both in there 

Quote

Sorry but i don't understand your complaint  My screen show easy to read and formatted  script, or i would change it.  It remains simple, formatted and easy to read after saving, and for ever after, as far as my screen appears   I always include a link, usually after the quote, as is academic standard  Ii don't use ibid, op cit, etc., and if there are two  quotes from the same source I only quote it once. Not sure what else i can do, as i cant SEE any problems like you mention, on screen .

Do you have a smartphone? 

Try looking at your posts on that. It's a dead set nightmare. It screws with the format of the site and often half the text is just lost to the right side of the screen. And the pages get ridiculously long with the larger texts. You might as well not post them at all half the time. 

Quote

Finally i use as much quote as is necessary to make a point Normally only a small fraction  of an article withe most significant points included 

No. You tend to overdo it. 

Quote

I am sorry but if people cant read more than a paragraph or are too lazy to, that's not my problem 

ive reduced the length of my posts to accommodate lazy or poor readers. I've reduced the size of my paragraphs to accommodate people who struggle with following an argument in longer paragraphs, and I've even begun double spacing lines for those who struggle with what they see as "dense" blocks of text bu to debate  takes time and effort.  This is not face book or some media where a few lines, or a meme, makes a point.      

Dont be a fecicious. It's not the reading it's both the format and the fact that often the links have many points and it can be difficult to work out what your referring to. Use a paragraph, be more verbose, don't be lazy and just cut and paste your way through a debate. Anyone can Google, try articulating your point consicely and leave the tales of your life to a minimum. We would all appreciate the effort. And we are here to discuss thoughts, not what you can Google. 

[Jodie.Lynne]

6 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

Is questionning your worldview so insulting? I guess you're not really open-minded, then.

Questioning someone's worldview is not insulting.

Telling people what you think they think and believe (or not) is.

Especially when they tell you that your interpretation is wrong and you persist in believing it.

Edited June 21, 2018 by Jodie.Lynne

[+joc]

9 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

"Faith" is not an accurate path to truth.

With "faith", a person can believe any sort of unprovable premise, without evidence.

 

It is like the plaque that reads With God All Things Are Possible.

If all things are possible...even with God...then there is no firm foundation for physics.  Gravity?  Not so much.  There is a fact....a fact...one...one fact...only one fact...in all of life.   That one fact we call The Laws of Physics.  Faith vaporizes that one fact. 

I have Faith in only one living being...and that's me.  I believe that I can...achieve whatever I set my mind to achieve.  When it all boils down and the only thing left in one's pan is Faith...if you believe in prayer...Pray to God that the faith that is left is in your own self!

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

They don't believe in God's thsts a well established fact. They believe in spirts and spirituality. Everett even says so. He even became an Atheist due to interactions with the tribe. It's quite interesting.

https://www.ibcsr.org/index.php/institute-research-portals/quantifying-religious-experience-project/529-south-american-society-offers-insight-into-spiritual-experience

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/04/16/the-interpreter-2

They have no concept of a supreme being or a creator so no they do not have a God or have bothered to contemplate the notion of one or God's. There is a clear difference between Abrahamic God, God's and Spirts.

The spirits the y believe in ARE their gods They treat them like gods and fear them like gods.

That was my point, In ancient times, gods took many forms; from sun gods, storm gods, gods of wind, water, trees and earth.  The piraha  have constructed these beliefs and these gods, just like all peoples.

To argue that  they don't have gods is like arguing that aboriginal people don't have gods,  because their gods are not like the abrahamic god.    

And my point was that Everett has actually been discredited, or at least his motivations and conclusions challenged, because of his own   personal life change and his own axe grinding. Other subsequent scientists investigating the tribe concluded that  he was wrong in tha t these entities were their gods, although the y don't thave a modern western conception of a god 

   And if you saw one of my sources it talks about their creation myth and the entities involved  There is NO difference between the Abrahamic god or thor,  loki, coyote, Quetzalcoatl  a leprechaun or a wood sprite except in degree. 

 

Pirahã

No monotheistic creator god, but believe in deities associated with specific places and things (Xigagai is described as a "spirit" or "being" in the wiki but appears to be as much a god as Hera or Zeus)

it is not a well established fact It is, rather, the discredited  theory of one man who was pushing his own barrow.  Very simply the y have the same beleifs and god forms as all primitive people It was just a bit beyond Everett to recognise such ancient forms as gods. 

The argument here is whether concepts of god grow from within individual minds or are passed down through generations  and "indoctrinated"  into children Atheists try to us e the piraha as proof that humans do not all construct god forms But the y do. The piraha god forms are ancient and personal. They believe they are real physical beings just as all ancient people believed their gods to be. 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

I think you do invest some belief in your conclusion. 

No. I do believe this to be true but only because of the many different studies from  many different professionals,  and from many different disciplines around the world, who have shown it to be the case. Ie i believe the experts. 

You posted one for me, but it didn't hint at gods being constructed. It said all sorts of constructs are imagined as they experience new things, but I don't remember any specific mention of God's. More like anything from chitty chitty bang bang to the purple people eater. And any parent I think would agree this reflects through language at that 'cute' stage from about 4-7.

As i said, the y are magical agents of change  which give children an explanation of  how observable things occur  God is just a name, but adults call such magical agents gods I tis how humans first thk and it reamins a powerful part of adult thinking 

Some may, but I don't believe that is the case 100%of the time, which is the impression I get from your post. 

 OK so how does a one year old, or a two year old,  in their own mind, explain the inexplicable things happening around them ? 

We have parents so that doesn't really make sense. We survive according to how our parents look after us. Babies don't have to compete in the wild, haven't for thousands of years. 

it works for children but also adults Eg a lightning storm is a fearful thing to a primitive person.  They are terrified by it and hide from, it restricting their options and allowing nature to determine their fate.

  NOw suppose they construct a belief tha t it is caused by intelligent beings for a purpose. Obviously if this is the case it is not random. These beings can be bargained with and propitiated and maybe even controlled with sacrifices and magic  So you perfom the necessary ritual and brave the storm, You survive and the belief grows (if you die it doesnt effect the evolutionary development because you don't get to spread the word. )   Soon people begin to believe the y can control or a t least deal with the powerful beings behind natural  events This is less terrifying and gives a sense of control 

I have kids, 2 of them. I was lucky to get a girl and a  boy. I've never seen behaviour from them, or their friends to support what your claiming. 

You probably wouldn't even realise it, unless oyu were looking for it   it begins in the pre speech stage of life.  Try asking a 2 year old how seeds get in a pumpkin and rattle around in it  The researchers found that kids from alll over the world replied when asked how seeds got in a gourd, "someone put them there"

 When asked how,  the kids of course didn't know but gave answers equating to "by magic" 

We are creative. That's all there is to that. Look at our own indigenous legends. They are pretty darn creative, but I can't help but wonder if original tellings were supposed to just be stories that have got out of hand to a ridiculous point, or if they were actually supposed to be real explanations. I think there may be a bit of both in there 

People believed.  We have Sumerian writings which show that Sumerians  believed that without proper prayers and sacrifices to gods and spirits, you could not brew a beer or make a brick .  Australian aboriginals believed the dream time  stories to be literally true .They believed that death and illness was always caused by spirits  Many still have remnants of these powerful beliefs.  We know cultures where people would not go into a forest, over a stream, or past a specific tree, without taking care to not anger the dryads or spirits living there  Hunters always gave some of the hunt back to the earth  etc . 

Do you have a smartphone? 

No  

I do use a tablet but not much for writing and the posts appear ok  on that 

lol I must admit i never considered that anyone would try to read stuff on a smart phone I can now appreciate your problem but i don't write for smart phone users  I tried taking your advice  and using plain text on a couple of posts today  it didnt change the appearance of my screen but for some reason it cause other difficulties. I lost a large part of one post  so i stopped trying to convert it 

Well at least I can appreciate you are not just whinging, and thanks for pointing  it out  (about smart phones )  but i cant do a lot about it  Id never ue a smart phone for tht sort of stuff whic might be why its not worth me owningone My wife and i both have tablets and a car charger which we take everywhere with us, mostly for reading .  

Try looking at your posts on that. It's a dead set nightmare. It screws with the format of the site and often half the text is just lost to the right side of the screen. And the pages get ridiculously long with the larger texts. You might as well not post them at all half the time. 

No. You tend to overdo it. 

That is subjective I do assume that many people won't bother checking  and reading the pages of source material so i include the essentials in a post  If i do not, some posters complain that i am making stuff up  yes anyone can google but unless its in my post I know from experience that many readers never do, because the y have made comments  which show the y never bothered to read my supporting sources  

Dont be a fecicious. It's not the reading it's both the format and the fact that often the links have many points and it can be difficult to work out what your referring to. Use a paragraph, be more verbose, don't be lazy and just cut and paste your way through a debate. Anyone can Google, try articulating your point consicely and leave the tales of your life to a minimum. We would all appreciate the effort. And we are here to discuss thoughts, not what you can Google. 

You've convinced me YOUR complaint was genuine, but over the years I've had many people complaining  about posts being too long, sentences being too long,paragraphs being too long, etc  I refuse to talk down to people, but i do try to keep my writing a lot simpler here   with short sentences paragraphs and double spacing  it s pretty primitive and basic compared with professional and academic writing  

The quoting is not laziness. In fact i thought it was the opposite.  I was taking the time and trouble to put the most important arguments INTO my own commentary  via quotes.

It is how i was taught to write and argue at uni., admittedly before google or the internet You put in quotes, often taking up a third of each written  page, then give sources so the quotes can be checked    

 

Drawing upon research in developmental psychology, cognitive anthropology and particularly the cognitive science of religion, I argue that religion comes nearly as naturally to us as language. The vast majority of humans are “born believers”, naturally inclined to find religious claims and explanations attractive and easily acquired, and to attain fluency in using them. This attraction to religion is an evolutionary by-product of our ordinary cognitive equipment, and while it tells us nothing about the truth or otherwise of religious claims it does help us see religion in an interesting new light.

As soon as they are born, babies start to try to make sense of the world around them. As they do so, their minds show regular tendencies. From birth children show certain predilections in what they pay attention to and what they are inclined to think.

One of the most important of these is to recognise the difference between ordinary physical objects and “agents” – things that can …

Unfortunately  you have to subscribe to the magazine to read the rest of this 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328562-000-the-god-issue-we-are-all-born-believers/

 

If God designed the human brain, he (or she) did a lousy job. Dogged by glitches and biases, requiring routine shutdown for maintenance for 8 hours a day, and highly susceptible to serious malfunction, a product recall would seem to be in order. But in one respect at least, God played a blinder: our brains are almost perfectly designed to believe in him/her.

Almost everybody who has ever lived has believed in some kind of deity. Even in today’s enlightened and materialistic times, atheism remains a minority pursuit requiring hard intellectual graft. Even committed atheists easily fall prey to supernatural ideas. Religious belief, in contrast, appears to be intuitive.

Cognitive scientists talk about us being born with a “god-shaped hole” in our heads. As a result, when children encounter religious claims, they instinctively find them plausible and attractive, and the hole is rapidly filled by the details of whatever religious culture they happen to be born into. When told that there is an invisible entity that watches over them, intervenes in their lives and passes moral judgement on them, most unthinkingly accept it. Ditto the idea that the same entity is directing events and that everything that happens, happens for a reason.

This is not brainwashing. The “cognitive by-product theory” argues that religious belief is a side effect …

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23631561-000-effortless-thinking-the-godshaped-hole-in-your-brain/

 

THE human mind has no specific department for religion. Instead, religions appear to be a by-product of various cognitive systems that evolved for unrelated reasons. Research on the cognitive foundations of religious thought has spawned insights about religion itself, as well as providing a fresh perspective on the long-standing project of comparing religion and science.

From an early age humans confront numerous fundamental problems that must be solved in order for them to function in the world. These include distinguishing between inanimate objects and “agents” that can act on their surroundings, recognising faces, avoiding contaminants, parsing speech and reading other people’s intentions. By the time children are 6 or 7 years old, their cognitive systems for solving these problems are mostly up and running (see “The God issue: We are all born believers”).

Such cognitive systems are “maturationally natural”; they emerge without effort and virtually define normal cognitive development. Although culture infiltrates them – for example, determining the language a child learns – acquiring them does not depend upon instruction or education.

Maturationally natural systems are also what Nobel prizewinning psychologist Daniel Kahneman calls “fast” – they operate automatically and effortlessly. Because of this, they are highly susceptible to false positives. For example, our hair-trigger system for detecting human forms leads us to see faces in the clouds, and our “agency detection device” leads us to talk to our computers and cars.

These rapid and automatic systems also make people receptive to religions. Humans are ready to leap at, swallow and digest religious stories like a hungry frog will …

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328562-200-the-god-issue-science-wont-loosen-religions-grip/

 

Quote

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Mr Walker

[Truthseeker007]

14 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

Jesus is what can be seen of God embodied in a human life. He is the revelation, the incarnation, of God's character and passion- of what God is like and of what God is most passionate about. He shows us the heart of God. And because Christians find the ultimate disclosure of God in a person and not a book, Jesus is more central than the Bible. Jesus trumps the Bible; when they disagree, Jesus wins.

So you are saying Jesus has nothing to do with Yahweh and the Bible is false? God is a person now also? What does Jesus win?

Edited June 21, 2018 by Truthseeker007

[D.O'N]

12 hours ago, Brother_Spirit said:

I'm aware that this is a very controversial subject. I need to tread carefully. But you seem to think that I absolutely have to agree with you. I do not, really. But it's a very simple question: Do (secular) atheists have faith? There appears to have more than one possible answer to that question. The only thing we have established so far is that atheists do not have a religious faith, in certain ideas. That does not mean that they do not put trust in those specific concepts.

Atheists can have faith. Just not in God/Gods.

[XenoFish]

Talking to god is a lot like going to therapy, it gets you comfortable with being average. And it really doesn't do anything. You can cry to god about how crap your life is or junk you want,but nothing changes. You still have to get up every morning, do the same soul crushing routine. Earn pieces of paper than pay for your privilege to exist. There is no magical fix. Religion is a drug. A placebo at most.

[Only_]

5 hours ago, Baldylocks said:

Atheists can have faith. Just not in God/Gods.

That's a pretty straightforward answer. Thanks.

[danydandan]

20 minutes ago, Brother_Spirit said:

That's a pretty straightforward answer. Thanks.

You seem to be of the notion that Atheism is a Faith. It isn't.

[Will Due]

4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Talking to god is a lot like going to therapy, it gets you comfortable with being average. And it really doesn't do anything. You can cry to god about how crap your life is or junk you want,but nothing changes. You still have to get up every morning, do the same soul crushing routine. Earn pieces of paper than pay for your privilege to exist. There is no magical fix. Religion is a drug. A placebo at most.

 

A little something:

 

Quote

You will learn that you increase your burdens and decrease the likelihood of success by taking yourself too seriously. Nothing can take precedence over the work of your status sphere—this world or the next. Very important is the work of preparation for the next higher sphere, but nothing equals the importance of the work of the world in which you are actually living. But though the work is important, the self is not. When you feel important, you lose energy to the wear and tear of ego dignity so that there is little energy left to do the work. Self-importance, not work-importance, exhausts immature creatures; it is the self element that exhausts, not the effort to achieve. You can do important work if you do not become self-important; you can do several things as easily as one if you leave yourself out. Variety is restful; monotony is what wears and exhausts. Day after day is alike—just life or the alternative of death.

Spoiler

The Urantia Book, c1934

http://bigbluebook.org/

 

 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

27 minutes ago, danydandan said:

48 minutes ago, Brother_Spirit said:

Quote

 5 hours ago, Baldylocks said:

Atheists can have faith. Just not in God/Gods.

That's a pretty straightforward answer. Thanks.

You seem to be of the notion that Atheism is a Faith. It isn't.

I don't know, but when I see this 'argument' of having faith and what it says about it, makes me think of going to semantics. In the same environment of how I see this, I could go even further into semantics to think how using it in how you think it implies, doesn't really mean what you want it to mean. And my semantics could use the fact of whether it's capitalized or not. Since religion gets the nod in how it's viewed, using capital letters, having 'faith' without a capital letter shows it's not used in how one wants it to be used. 

As I think so many assume that a word could mean many things, having trust in something, (because of past understandings of something) is not the same as showing respect and reveredness for a religion or belief. In other words, I think some are doing a bad job of translating a word to further their ideals. I think going Amelia Bedelia doesn't work. It didn't help that maid in getting things done correctly, did it? 

Having faith in something, is not worshipping it, like having a Faith. I have worship in you, or I have worship that the day will be sunny. Doesn't sound right, does it? 

[Will Due]

 

Secular faith and religious faith in God, are not the same. They shouldn't be compared either. 

Faith in God is to religion what sails are to a ship.

 

Quote

Belief is always limiting and binding; faith is expanding and releasing. Belief fixates, faith liberates. But living religious faith is more than the association of noble beliefs; it is more than an exalted system of philosophy; it is a living experience concerned with spiritual meanings, divine ideals, and supreme values; it is God-knowing and man-serving. Beliefs may become group possessions, but faith must be personal. Theologic beliefs can be suggested to a group, but faith can rise up only in the heart of the individual religionist.

Spoiler

The Urantia Book

 

 

 

[Truthseeker007]

19 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

You know what? 

Y'all win.

You've discovered the BIG ATHEIST SECRET!

We all meet and bow down to statues of Darwin,, Sagan, And Galileo. We sacrifice little white mice on little teeny tiny altars and drink 180 proof rum from beakers.

We have orgies with every conceivable combination of gender (and some inconceivable ones too), because we LOVE to SIN!

 

Are you all satisfied now?

Sounds like fun!!

[danydandan]

19 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

You know what? 

Y'all win.

You've discovered the BIG ATHEIST SECRET!

We all meet and bow down to statues of Darwin,, Sagan, And Galileo. We sacrifice little white mice on little teeny tiny altars and drink 180 proof rum from beakers.

We have orgies with every conceivable combination of gender (and some inconceivable ones too), because we LOVE to SIN!

 

Are you all satisfied now?

Filth.

[Truthseeker007]

6 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Talking to god is a lot like going to therapy, it gets you comfortable with being average. And it really doesn't do anything. You can cry to god about how crap your life is or junk you want,but nothing changes. You still have to get up every morning, do the same soul crushing routine. Earn pieces of paper than pay for your privilege to exist. There is no magical fix. Religion is a drug. A placebo at most.

I would also say that religion is a parasite. A religion really can't survive without feeding off the energy of it's followers. In reality if the religion don't have those pieces of paper it won't survive.

[Essan]

Atheism is a faith in the same way that not taking heroin is an addiction  

[XenoFish]

25 minutes ago, Truthseeker007 said:

I would also say that religion is a parasite. A religion really can't survive without feeding off the energy of it's followers. In reality if the religion don't have those pieces of paper it won't survive.

I have no issue with eastern religion. Systems like buddhism and shinto. It's the abrahamic ones. I'll even toss satanism into that group. They are basically dictatorships of the mind.