History shows that atheism is as natural to humans as religion

[Keith&Co.]

Holy - ! That should put the fear of god in you. No leaks? Electrical heat wired to it and it has no leaks, right?

There is a heating pad under the waterproof lining that cups the water-filled bladder. It would take quite some work to get electrocified. So, yea, verily, we're probably one dripping exposure away from being scared into spiritual alignment with the Great Protector.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Well, I would say that God showed me the bible but I know you're gonna argue that theism comes from humans and that they are the 'reason' why I think God exists.

Okay, well, just how did God show you the Bible? What manifestations occurred that induced you to come into contact with that book? It's not an unreasonable question. But answering in effect, "You guys are just gonna argue with me" is not a reasonable answer.

But my point is about the genetic fallacy of presuming that people are only Christian/Atheist because of where they are born. It's clearly not the case because people can and do alter their views about God.

That's a societal/environmental argument, not a genetic one. The general tendency toward religion may indeed have a genetic component due to any number of viable reasons, but where one grows up obviously plays a big role in what they believe. Were that not the case then there would be a much more even mixture in the numbers people with respect to given religious faiths around the world, i.e. there would just as many Christians in Saudi Arabia as there are Muslims.

 

[Juma]

Who showed you the bible?

Well, I would say that God showed me the bible but I know you're gonna argue that theism comes from humans and that they are the 'reason' why I think God exists.

So you are unreasonable and want to see God in anything. Sad, but good to know.

But my point is about the genetic fallacy of presuming that people are only Christian/Atheist because of where they are born. It's clearly not the case because people can and do alter their views about God.

So that us why there so many hindus in india and few in palestina? Really?

 

[skepticalbip]

But my point is about the genetic fallacy of presuming that people are only Christian/Atheist because of where they are born. It's clearly not the case because people can and do alter their views about God.

It isn't genetics. It is social. Children's beliefs are formed by the beliefs of their parents and associates and what a child is taught up until about the age of twelve or so will, for the overwhelming majority of people, be what they believe as adults. Few will even change the particular sect of the religion they were born into. Most children in Nepal are born to Buddhist parents so are Buddhist for the rest of their lives. Most children in India are born to Hindu parents so are Hindus for the rest of their lives. Most children in Saudi Arabia are born to Muslim parents so are Muslim for the rest of their lives. If, as an infant, you had been adopted by Japanese and they took you from Australia to Japan to grow up in Japan with them then you would likely believe in Buddhism and/or Shinto.

Clearly, it doesn't have anything to do with the "truth" of the religion. It has to do with the religion the child grows up in. Of course, there is a very small percentage of people who will change their religion or better drop religion all together if they have enough curiosity and desire to understand to actually closely examine their religion for logic, reality, and consistency.

 

[Bomb#20]

But my point is about the genetic fallacy of presuming that people are only Christian/Atheist because of where they are born. It's clearly not the case because people can and do alter their views about God.

It isn't genetics. It is social. Children's beliefs are formed by...

That's a societal/environmental argument, not a genetic one. The general tendency toward religion may indeed have a genetic component due to any number of viable reasons, but...

The "Genetic Fallacy" has nothing to do with genetics. Genetics was named after "genetic", not vice versa.

From Merriam-Webster:

Full Definition of genetic
1: relating to or determined by the origin, development, or causal antecedents of something
2: ...
​

However, Lion IRC doesn't appear to be using the term "genetic fallacy" quite correctly. He seems to be saying atheists haven't identified the true origin of people's theism; but that's not why the GF is a fallacy. It's a fallacy because even if atheists are right about the origin of some theist's belief, that isn't evidence that he hasn't acquired better reasons after becoming a theist.

 

[fromderinside]

Geez.

We're still arguing genetic intent here? Puleez. Intent? RU Kidding me. No f-ing way religion is an intentional component of genes. Try to show it. All you need to do is experimentally show the hand of a designer. Good luck with that. Goes for atheism as well.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Who showed you the bible?

Well, I would say that God showed me the bible but I know you're gonna argue that theism comes from humans and that they are the 'reason' why I think God exists.

But my point is about the genetic fallacy of presuming that people are only Christian/Atheist because of where they are born. It's clearly not the case because people can and do alter their views about God.

And Hedonism? If the Christian Heaven isn't the epitome of hedonism, I don't know what is.

Lets not forget, also, that for the last couple thousand years that if you didn't tow the Christian line you were likely to be hauled into the center of town and set on fire while everyone cheered. So in a very real sense Christianity has been a form of terrorism that only flourished because it killed off any competition. Had it been required to survive by force of argument alone it would have never survived simply because it is so ridiculously stupid.

We're not hardwired for religion, that much is certain. But personally I love to pretend, fantasize, which is exactly what religion requires.

 

[Lion IRC]

It isn't genetics. It is social. Children's beliefs are formed by...

That's a societal/environmental argument, not a genetic one. The general tendency toward religion may indeed have a genetic component due to any number of viable reasons, but...

The "Genetic Fallacy" has nothing to do with genetics. Genetics was named after "genetic", not vice versa.

From Merriam-Webster:

Full Definition of genetic
1: relating to or determined by the origin, development, or causal antecedents of something
2: ...
​

However, Lion IRC doesn't appear to be using the term "genetic fallacy" quite correctly. He seems to be saying atheists haven't identified the true origin of people's theism; but that's not why the GF is a fallacy. It's a fallacy because even if atheists are right about the origin of some theist's belief, that isn't evidence that he hasn't acquired better reasons after becoming a theist.

I'm a biblical theist because of the evidence for and reasonableness of same, NOT because of where I was born
...or where my parents were born, or their parents, or their parents' parents, etc etc etc.

 

[bilby]

That's a societal/environmental argument, not a genetic one. The general tendency toward religion may indeed have a genetic component due to any number of viable reasons, but...

The "Genetic Fallacy" has nothing to do with genetics. Genetics was named after "genetic", not vice versa.

From Merriam-Webster:

Full Definition of genetic
1: relating to or determined by the origin, development, or causal antecedents of something
2: ...
​

However, Lion IRC doesn't appear to be using the term "genetic fallacy" quite correctly. He seems to be saying atheists haven't identified the true origin of people's theism; but that's not why the GF is a fallacy. It's a fallacy because even if atheists are right about the origin of some theist's belief, that isn't evidence that he hasn't acquired better reasons after becoming a theist.

I'm a biblical theist because of the evidence for and reasonableness of same, NOT because of where I was born
...or where my parents were born, or their parents, or their parents' parents, etc etc etc.

So you were INCREDIBLY lucky not to be born in Saudi Arabia, to Muslim parents, as the penalty for conversion away from Islam is death.

And you need a really good explanation why so few Japanese people convert to Christianity; after all, the majority of Japanese people are no less reasonable nor less intelligent than you; and yet most of them choose to be Shinto or Buddhist, not Christian.

You also need a really good explanation why so few Indian people convert to Christianity; after all, the majority of Indian people are no less reasonable nor less intelligent than you; and yet most of them choose to be Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, not Christian.

Observation tells us that the VAST majority of people claim to believe the SAME religion they were raised in, is the one religion that happens to be true; and further, that they claim this is due to the evidence for and reasonableness of same, and NOT to the circumstances in which they were raised. They can't all be right; Indeed either only one such group is right, or none are. What reason do you have to think that you were just lucky enough to be born in a region where your particular religious belief is commonplace; while the Indian Hindus and Japanese Shintos are both incredibly unlucky, and too thick to work out that they got it wrong?

I mean, in the 1600s, the Indians could reasonably claim that they never saw the evidence supporting Christianity; But that's not be the case for at least 300 years now, so what are they waiting for? If Christianity is so well evidenced, why are there still Hindus?

 

[Lion IRC]

Well I think it is quite reasonable (and intelligent) to think that some form of divinity is true - where ever in the world you live.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well I think it is quite reasonable (and intelligent) to think that some form of divinity is true - where ever in the world you live.

Intelligent? So it's a matter of reason.
How does reason come to conclude that divinity is true?

 

[Atheos]

...Christians in the US would be devout Hindus if they had been born in Delhi or devout Muslims if they were born in Libya because that would be the faith of their authority figures when they were growing up.

I was born and raised in a hedonistic, materialistic, secular country thousands of miles away and thousands of years apart from the birth place of Christianity.

I should be smoking weed and worshipping Mamon and going to sex orgies in honor of Aphrodite/Eros.

Hmmm... Come to think of it I was too. It's called "The United States of America."

If your belief in a bronze-age war god is the only thing holding you back from a life of waste and reckless abandon then by all means stick with it. I happen to be a very nice guy and model citizen and need no woo to keep me from eating babies or sacrificing any virgins to .... well, nobody in particular since I don't believe in any gods.

Seriously, what makes you think that without Christianity people would be living like that? Are you not aware that there are many societies predominantly atheistic who get along just fine and enjoy high productivity?

 

[Underseer]

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index...t-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion

Despite being written out of large parts of history, atheists thrived in the polytheistic societies of the ancient world – raising considerable doubts about whether humans really are “wired” for religion – a new study suggests.

The claim is the central proposition of a new book by Tim Whitmarsh, Professor of Greek Culture and a Fellow of St John’s College, University of Cambridge. In it, he suggests that atheism – which is typically seen as a modern phenomenon – was not just common in ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome, but probably flourished more in those societies than in most civilisations since.

As a result, the study challenges two assumptions that prop up current debates between atheists and believers: Firstly, the idea that atheism is a modern point of view, and second, the idea of “religious universalism” – that humans are naturally predisposed, or “wired”, to believe in gods.

Ugh, sorry but I can't find the link to that article I read.

There's a new finding that atheism was much more common in the ancient world than we believed, which would undermine the "humans predisposed to theism" argument. If this is true, then the reason for the seeming universality of theism in the modern world is simply a byproduct of the incredibly aggressive proselytizing tactics of Islam and Christianity.

 

[Juma]

I'm a biblical theist because of the evidence for and reasonableness of same

That really doesnt make sense. There is no evidence and biblical theism is definitily not reasonable.

 

[skepticalbip]

I'm a biblical theist because of the evidence for and reasonableness of same

That really doesnt make sense. There is no evidence and biblical theism is definitily not reasonable.

The logical sequence employed by Christian theists is:
. first assumption is that there is a creator god.
. second assumption is that the Bible is the word of this creator god so evidence for the first assumption.
Therefore it is only reasonable to believe in this existent creator god.

 

[ronburgundy]

Atheism has always been an available menu option.

The enigma is why, after ~50,000 years, atheism still hasn't made it into the big league.
After all, atheists are so much smarter than everyone else, so why can't they persuade the rest of us that no God/gods exist?

You answered your own question. Does the fact that Stephen Hawkins cannot get the majority of people to understand Quantum Mechanics mean that Hawkins is wrong about physics or that he is not smarter than the people who cannot understand it?

IOW, the majority fall for the nonsense of God, because it is a simplistic idea that is easier for them to get their mind around than the more complex causal contingencies that actually are responsible for the world around them.

A second reason is that God is not just simple but satisfies the egoistic/narcissistic tendencies of people to anthropomorphize the universe in their own image. Related to that, an immaterial source for life allows the possible continuation of some sense of self after material death, and thus satisfies people's fear of death.

Finally, God and faith go hand-in-hand with authoritarian violence. They justify it and are fueled by it. Thus, theism has been able to successfully promote itself with physical violence and threat of violence, which helps shield it from rational thought and rational discourse, making the fact that atheism is more rationally defensible a moot point in the struggle for cultural dominance. Atheism cannot be effectively spread with violence, because violence promotes unreason and authoritarianism which both favor theism in the long run. Long term success in promoting atheism requires non-coerced liberty and allowing people to reason their way to non-belief in the Gods that emotional bias and social coercion tend to favor. That is way secularism and political values respecting personal liberty and democracy have grown together in the West over the last 500 years and why all these things have not developed similarly in theocratic societies.

 

[bilby]

Well I think it is quite reasonable (and intelligent) to think that some form of divinity is true - where ever in the world you live.

But that's NOT what religious people do.

Muslims don't think that 'some sort of divinity is true'; they think that Allah is EXACTLY as he is described in the Quran, and that Mohammed is his prophet.

Christians don't think that 'some kind of divinity is true'; they think that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of God, and that he was crucified and returned to life three days later, as described by the Bible.

These are not minor differences - according to the people who hold these beliefs, they are central to their belief system, and are worth dying and even killing for.

Sorry, but you can't spend all of recorded history claiming that yours is the one true faith and that all who fail to believe as you do will go to hell (and should be sent there forthwith), but then get to pretend that it's all basically the same, when it is pointed out that this shows that you are all likely to be wrong, and that the whole business is bullshit.

 

[4321lynx]

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index...t-atheism-is-as-natural-to-humans-as-religion

Despite being written out of large parts of history, atheists thrived in the polytheistic societies of the ancient world – raising considerable doubts about whether humans really are “wired” for religion – a new study suggests.


The claim is the central proposition of a new book by Tim Whitmarsh, Professor of Greek Culture and a Fellow of St John’s College, University of Cambridge. In it, he suggests that atheism – which is typically seen as a modern phenomenon – was not just common in ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome, but probably flourished more in those societies than in most civilisations since.

As a result, the study challenges two assumptions that prop up current debates between atheists and believers: Firstly, the idea that atheism is a modern point of view, and second, the idea of “religious universalism” – that humans are naturally predisposed, or “wired”, to believe in gods.

Ugh, sorry but I can't find the link to that article I read.

There's a new finding that atheism was much more common in the ancient world than we believed, which would undermine the "humans predisposed to theism" argument. If this is true, then the reason for the seeming universality of theism in the modern world is simply a byproduct of the incredibly aggressive proselytizing tactics of Islam and Christianity.

Point me to one civilisation or one tribe, which has not a religion, or a set of beliefs and superstitions of a similar nature used to support or enforce social order.

There are other religions beside Islam & Christianity. e.g. in Babylon, in Egypt, in India, Burma, China, Japan, ancient and modern Israel, in Australian aboriginal society etc. Show me one region, (outside of the post-enlightment Europe where a few individuals, with much influence during or after their lives, became atheists), which was full of atheists, with more of those than of the religious.

You can hardly blame Islam's and Xtianity's proselytising tactics for all those "religions".

 

[ronburgundy]

Ugh, sorry but I can't find the link to that article I read.

There's a new finding that atheism was much more common in the ancient world than we believed, which would undermine the "humans predisposed to theism" argument. If this is true, then the reason for the seeming universality of theism in the modern world is simply a byproduct of the incredibly aggressive proselytizing tactics of Islam and Christianity.

Point me to one civilisation or one tribe, which has not a religion, or a set of beliefs and superstitions of a similar nature used to support or enforce social order.

There are other religions beside Islam & Christianity. e.g. in Babylon, in Egypt, in India, Burma, China, Japan, ancient and modern Israel, in Australian aboriginal society etc. Show me one region, (outside of the post-enlightment Europe where a few individuals, with much influence during or after their lives, became atheists), which was full of atheists, with more of those than of the religious.

You can hardly blame Islam's and Xtianity's proselytising tactics for all those "religions".

If most religion is designed to promote authoritarian aggression and coercion (and it is), then even if a large % of people within many societies were non-believers, the public face of those societies would be dominated by the religious people who are religious largely because they seek to dominate and control others. IOW, the fact at an aggregate sociological level each society appears largely "religious" does not mean the overwhelming majority of individuals within it actually believe in anything the religion claims.

The aggression inherent to most God concepts and the epistemology of faith in general would lead to greater aggression of theists against non-believers than the reverse. Over time, this would mean a reduction in non-believers either because they were killed (and possibly genetic factors that enable non-theism made less prevalent), or because the increase level in ways in which social coercion motivates theism led more people to justify their way to belief. As principles of democracy and personal liberty arose in the Enlightenment (pushed mostly by non-believers), these social values gave protection to people from some of the coercive theist tactics, resulting in the increasing non-belief we see throughout the West.

I still think it is the case that the majority are more disposed toward theism. But their is variance in virtually all cognitive or emotional traits that would underlie that disposition. So, its almost certain the some people are less disposed, and that use of cultural force against those less disposed is not only lesser now in the West than 1000 years ago, but was lesser 5,000 to 10,000 years ago than 1,000 years ago due to changes in the size and nature of societies and how they exerted conformist control.

 

[4321lynx]

Point me to one civilisation or one tribe, which has not a religion, or a set of beliefs and superstitions of a similar nature used to support or enforce social order.

There are other religions beside Islam & Christianity. e.g. in Babylon, in Egypt, in India, Burma, China, Japan, ancient and modern Israel, in Australian aboriginal society etc. Show me one region, (outside of the post-enlightment Europe where a few individuals, with much influence during or after their lives, became atheists), which was full of atheists, with more of those than of the religious.

You can hardly blame Islam's and Xtianity's proselytising tactics for all those "religions".

If most religion is designed to promote authoritarian aggression and coercion (and it is), then even if a large % of people within many societies were non-believers, the public face of those societies would be dominated by the religious people who are religious largely because they seek to dominate and control others. IOW, the fact at an aggregate sociological level each society appears largely "religious" does not mean the overwhelming majority of individuals within it actually believe in anything the religion claims.

The aggression inherent to most God concepts and the epistemology of faith in general would lead to greater aggression of theists against non-believers than the reverse. Over time, this would mean a reduction in non-believers either because they were killed (and possibly genetic factors that enable non-theism made less prevalent), or because the increase level in ways in which social coercion motivates theism led more people to justify their way to belief. As principles of democracy and personal liberty arose in the Enlightenment (pushed mostly by non-believers), these social values gave protection to people from some of the coercive theist tactics, resulting in the increasing non-belief we see throughout the West.

I still think it is the case that the majority are more disposed toward theism. But their is variance in virtually all cognitive or emotional traits that would underlie that disposition. So, its almost certain the some people are less disposed, and that use of cultural force against those less disposed is not only lesser now in the West than 1000 years ago, but was lesser 5,000 to 10,000 years ago than 1,000 years ago due to changes in the size and nature of societies and how they exerted conformist control.

Let's get some things straight

1, I am an atheist.
2, Atheism in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to diminish very violent control of societies there.
3, Democracy does not necessarily need atheism. It was not atheists who "invented" the USA and convinced men to fight and die for it. I grant you it was allegedly religious, fallible men who screwed it up more than somewhat.
4, Atheism should be as much a private matter as any religion, and not a matter for atheistic missionaries.
5, Your almost certain above is your guess, and gets no cigar.
6, Religions are a human construct and their failings are due to human nature. The same applies to some atheists' opinions. This includes my opinions.