Theism vs. Atheism - Experience or Interpretation?

And atheists don't do that?

Surely you're familiar with goths and other such losers? A prime example of mass-mind atheism.

Religion occurs in every society, ever. Surely there must be a biological aspect. In fact, I am certain that there is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure... after we develop a sophisticated understanding of the human brain.

If you don't believe in something because there is no evidence for it, then you are not acting on faith.

As Dawkins says, “We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists and a-unicornists, but we don’t have to bother saying so.”

A stronger sense? Correct. A better sense? Aboslutely not!

Putting belief aside, and venturing into the sea of speculation... I would say this universe is not the only one. I picture many 'bubbles', popping in and out of existence.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Um, atheists do not go to church. Athiests use that time productively.

Being "goth" is a fashion statement rather than a belief system. Matter of fact, being goth has nothing to do with an individual's religion or lack thereof. The closest that goths come to a mass-mind belief system is a stance against authority figures and perhaps a bleak outlook on life (see link: Goth) . Take special note of the quotes from the article:

"Aesthetic elements of Catholicism especially play a major role in goth culture"

and

"...the goth subculture contains a great diversity of religious and secularist beliefs"

A fashion fad hardly athiesm makes. Matter of fact I know a Roman Catholic guy...who is goth...and bisexual (his sexuality has very little to do with this particular discussion, but I thought I'd throw that in for the theist prudes who will read this).

This must be the grandest heights of sh*t. Religion is a psychological comfort zone at best, its evolution perhaps influenced by environment, even lack of knowledge; but religions' longevity is indoctrination through and through. No matter the society.

Where in the DNA helix is it written what religion you'll grow up to be? Why do parents of differing religions chose one for their child? Or sometimes allow the child to choose one? Because it is a belief not genetic!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Church is a very valuable activity, as unites communities and builds social networks.

Oh yeah, I know. It's a fashion.
But are you not familiar with the people I speak of? Have you never met groups of people whose choice not to believe wasn't out of critical thought as much as it was out of a mass movement?
I know some Marilyn Manson fans like that.
Somewhat similar to satanists who define themselves in terms of what God isn't. More of a pseudo-religion based around not believing in the tenets of another.

It's a weird value system, where they define themselves by lacking what the other party has. Rather than a neutral set of non-values, it's an active set of negative values.

For instance: I don't believe in god, I don't care about god, I don't think about god, and that's my business

vs.

I don't believe in god but I am utterly tripped up in behaving just like a religious person in telling everyone about my (non)belief.

Actions speak louder than words. Or in this case, some words all sound the same, hmmm?

Wait and see, wait and see.
They'd already shown that religious experiences can be reproduced by putting the head in an electric field.

And do you think that what we find psychologically comforting has no basis in biology? Are you a dualist then?

 

Really? Right now I'm witnessing the influence of the RC church in a Government Budget, where the folks in charge have instituted COUNTRY financial decisions based on their biblical beliefs. True economists are predicting a massive blow against tourism income because of it. A considerable number of companies are protesting and gathering lawyers because the politicians have effectively destroyed a sweeping sector of their own country's economy. All because of theists with too much power.

Satanism IS a religion. Therefore satanists are theists as well. Albeit arguably evil ones, but still theists. Therefore no, I have not met anyone who "chose to disbelieve" due to a mass movement.

Roman, on a side note, I almost have enough to physically describe you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I do understand what you're saying here, but sometimes us logical folks have fun teasing theists

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Personally however, until I found these forums, I honestly didn't bother with theisms around me, especially from my family. I didn't even know who Antony Flew or Richard Dawkins were til within the last 3 weeks. Atheism and agnosticism are just the obvious ends of logical examination; and therefore are indeed the abscence of a belief rather than the reverse belief of theism. This occurence is not a mass-mind event.

You're speaking of HALLUCINATIONS Roman. The brain is an electrical device, obviously if the correct set of synapses are activated the owner of said brain will imagine whatever lives in that sector or hemisphere.

"putting head in an electric field" indeed!

The reactions to the psychological strokings are biological obviously. The ORIGIN of religion has NOTHING to do with biology as you implied in your previous post. You obviously alluded to it, but you left just enough space in your fallacy to appear correct when I (or another logical person) called you on it. A popular theist tactic. Switching the cause and effect on me won't make me forget your original implication.

Let me state with finality, the origin of religion has no biological basis. The continuation of religion is indoctrination. Religion is not written in DNA therefore is not inheritable. These institutions were totally dreamed up by folks with political agenda and the wish to control masses and/or the planet.

 

That's a different case than what I was getting at. That case is almost theocratic, and is certainly at a level far removed from church picnics and support groups. You say that going to church is a waste of time. Perhaps it may be a waste of time for you, but to declare that it is a waste for everyone is obviously false.

People that attend church can foster bonds with other people, giving them common ground. If you are a businessman, or looking for some help or resources, turning to the people that attend your church is a very real solution.

I don't think satanism is theist. It's more of a set of guidelines. Sort of like a twisted form of Buddhism.

Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

They don't believe in the existance of deities, per se.

I'm curious as to what you think I look like.

I am in general accord. Most atheists seem to have come about their disbelief through personal examination. But perhaps, at least here in the states, that's really the most frequent way it happens, as atheists are in such a minority.

Atheism is a relatively new set of values, so it's hard to say whether there can or can't be any mass-effect. I've certainly seen evidence for mass-effect atheism, though not on the scale of religion.

Then there you have a biological basis for religious experience.

 

I thought most return to atheism due to examining their religion, and from there to examining the irrational notion of faith.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

LOL!
Utter, utter bollox.
I can just see the dinosaur priests at their altars now!

Well, for "experience" of some description. "Religious" or otherwise is merely interpretation.

Evidence please.

If Pirates ruled the galaxy then we should expect to see some evidence of Pirates in our history throughout the world. We do. Therefore pirates obviously rule the galaxy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Pattern-seeking, maybe, but rational?? And you say this as a religious person?

Patterns are not causal links!!


I'll finish off when I've got more time.

 

Then, going to see John Edwards is equally beneficial? Does he give people real hope and real solutions?

Those values have evolved along with man, hence are older than the so-called values purported by religions. In fact, some of those relgious values, the ones which are related to not doing harm to others are merely summations of values already practiced.

 

Straw man. Dinosaurs were not people. We have no evidence that they were like people. We have a good deal of evidence that they were in fact, unlike people.

We do, however, have evidence of the most primitve of humans, and even some ancestral non-humans, engaging in religious practices.

So you are denying the existance percieved of religious experiences?

I presented some of it. Did you read it?

I mentioned nothing of rule, and nothing of the galaxy. This is meaningless hyperbole.

However, if we were to examine the nature of people without laws to keep them behaving, if without coercive force, people would take the wealth of other people, if they had the capability, then an examination of global pirate phenomena would be a worthwhile undertaking, no?

People are generally rational. We use reason. We look at the evidence available to us and form useful conclusions. Reason and our ability to find patterns (especially when patterns may not exist) is an entirely utilitarian endeavor.

Precisely. That's why religion occurs. An incomplete data set, an inaccurate model. Correlation vs. causation. As a primitive human, or pre-human, wouldn't it be safer to form false conclusions based on correlation rather than assume that there's a false positive?

Please do.

 

I assume you mean the politician?
It's not equally beneficial, nor is it the same type of beneficial. It's a poor comparison, but I'm sure you realize.

The difference between big party politics and small community gatherings are considerably different. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you can see the differences.

Hrm, yes and no.
Yes, we may all begin as atheists, but for most of history, life led us to be theists. Or at least religious. Supernatural explanations and so forth. I think it's a product of our big brains falsely making models of cause and consequence.

Atheism, as a mass-movement, hasn't existed until quite recently, as the evidence for atheism hasn't been all that great. The atheists of antiquity and pre-history were few and far between. I posit that the theists of pre-history were so because of personal experience and an incomplete data set.

As societies grew and changed, the set of values that ran societies, what mattered, what caused rain to fall and children to die, changed out of necessity. It also changed to continue as a cohesive force. People of a religion socially cohere as they share a similar model for reality. They hold the same values, the same beliefs.

When we became agrarian, religions became less about people and their environment (save the small slice of environment that's present in a field of wheat, or particular to cattle), and more about people and people.
Why would they do this?
Because the key models for existance no longer hinged on surviving in wilderness, but survivng among people.

People that held a particular religious view persecuted those who held different or non-religious views, as they were an affront to that particular group's view of the world.

Declaring yourself an atheist in Sumer would be essentially declaring yourself crazy. And society frowns on crazies.

 

Thank you Sarkus and Q.

I just have one more thing to add, Roman you're confusing biology with psychology. Indoctrination can in no way be construed, defined or otherwise linked to biology.

Your statement about acceptance fairly correct; humans do have a need - generally - for group acceptance. HOWEVER, the cultivation of the direction of that acceptance is a variable. Theists choose the psychological warfare that is known as religious indoctrination.

Simply because humans have the need for acceptance does not mean that religion is biological. One could easily replace religion with patriotism for example. If an individual is accepted into some group based on country of birth, their "built in" need for belonging to a group is fulfilled, without religion.

I don't even need to address the rest of your diatribe, because it is irrelevant in light of my distinction here.

 

Where, then, does the mind come from?


Again, I ask, are you a dualist?

 

I think that the Easter Bunny is a very real invisible entity, can you prove to me it's not? I've talked to him before, and we interact frequently.

 

1. What relevence does "where the mind comes from" bear? It is merely housed in a brain. Theoretically, a "mind" can be housed in a computer of sufficient oompah - a totally synthetic (as opposed to biological) "body".

2. Who cares about dualism? I'm telling you that religion is a philosophy passed on by indoctrination. The biological aspect you are clinging to is the EFFECT of this indoctrination (endorphin rush etc), but you are mistaking a biological function as the CAUSE of religion.

 

If you're a materialist as opposed to a dualist, then religion, as a function of the mind -- which is no more than a process of the brain -- must have biological roots. Can you not see this? If the mind is not separate from the brain, then neurobiology and psychology must study the same thing.

 

Thanks baumgarten!
I wish I could have said that in as few words as you used, but I thought he was a materialist so I tried explaining more of my theory. Turns out he believes in non-entities!!

 

No, thank you! It's only fair, considering your theory is closer to my thoughts on religion than I have been able to express myself.

 

Ah of course, I see the trap you set. Labels!

Here I am speaking about the uselessness of religion, and you want to try to prove I believe in "non-entities" so that you can try to ascribe more of your theisms on me.

I will not recognise the labels "dualist" or "materialist". However I recognize psychology as a completely different study from neurobiology insofar as what a conscious intelligence experiences or how it interacts. Neurobiology would be the science behind the workings of the "house" of conscious intelligence - the physical brain.

To draw an analogy, an electrical engineer can build a computer motherboard, and a programmer can write correct code of the CMOS chip. With either absent, the computer will not function. This does NOT mean that the CMOS code is a function of electricity or the electric circuits.

 

To use your analogy, without the correct CMOS code, it wouldn't be the same motherboard. It would behave differently. The code is nothing but a certain arrangement of particles in the CMOS chip.

Dualism and materialism are not arbitrary labels; they're schools of philosophical thought. If you believe that the mind and brain are separate, that makes you a dualist by definition. A materialist would hold the opinion that neurobiology is at least as capable of studying the human psyche as psychology, likely more capable since it goes into greater physical detail. You see, in materialism, "conscious intelligence experiences" and the "transmissions and progress of the 'house' of conscious intelligence" are exactly one and the same.

This all relates to the question of religion in that if religion can be completely reduced to a common set of electrochemical reactions in the brain, then its roots are obviously biological. Humans have an evolved tendency to infer the existence of God from the experience of certain phenomena. Because, as a survival mechanism, we naturally draw spurious conclusions from incomplete data, a belief in the supernatural or a supreme being can arise with very little effort on the part of the subject. Or as I believe francois said, "people believe in God because it's so fucking easy."

A dualist may argue that, through the conscious exercise of the brain-independent mind, one can clearly see these misconstructions as false and, as you argue, useless; and the conscious decision not to use this power of reason implies a responsibility for that action. However, in materialism, there is nothing special about what we call "free will," and there is no immaterial component of the mind that is unrestricted by the constraints of biology and therefore undeniably able and responsible to initiate such a thought process. See here the conclusions of dualism versus materialism given the same conditions. If you do not recognize these labels, then how do you explain the difference in interpretation between yourself and Roman, which so closely correlates to the above?

 

What does it matter if religion is rooted in biology? It only means superstition in general is rooted in biology.