Are Atheists just close minded Agnostics?

[ImmortalFlame]

The concept of the supernatural being and the story of its appearance and development is by itself a part of the human history. The supernatural does not exist but the concept does and therefore it is a subject for science to investigate.

Which it has done, with the science behind the formation of myth.

There are no myths about gods that mention priests.

So?

You yourself said that: “For primitive man, the idea that there was another man in the sky throwing down lightning bolts made sense,...” and therefore it was the primitive man who is responsible for the idea of the gods and not the non-existent at that time theologians.

I think you're working from a very different definition of "religion" than the common one. Religion is just an organized system of practices, traditions and beliefs generally centered around supernatural claims.

Religion appeared when the gods became immaterial beings living in the heavens. I would say 15,000 years ago. The so-called Venus figurines depicting Great Mother are almost 40,000 years old.

Which figurines were these?

As you understand there is not even a shred of evidence for the above. It is pure conjecture and, please forgive me, it indicates lack of proper information.

God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Evolution of the God Gene - NYTimes.com
Are we hardwired for God? | Books | guardian.co.uk

If that's not the explanation, please present an alternative. Also, "magic" is not allowed.

The gods who throw down lightning bolts were produced by the philosophers and there is not the slightest doubt about this being a fact because it has been recorded in the ancient Greek literature as a fact.

Source? In any case, that's irrelevant. People still believed it.

The description of the traditional gods of the Greeks, which derives from the monomyth that you mentioned, is a description of some unethical beings who rape and kill people and it is found in the epic poems attributed to Homer and Hesiod.

Again, irrelevant. People still used it as a means to contextualize the world. The exact same applies to every other God ever created - starting even with worship of the sun.

The philosophers did not like Homer’s description of the gods and invented the allegorical interpretation of the myths (the philosopher Theagenes of the 6th century BC is regarded as the father of the allegorical interpretation). They said that, for example, when in the poems we read that Zeus was raping women the poet meant to say that Zeus was opening holes in the ground for the grass to emerge!!

Plato, however, as you most probably know, did not buy the allegorical nonsense and forbade the teaching of the epic poems in his imaginary Republic. People should not know the truth. People should be taught about good, ethical gods in order to behave properly themselves.

All of that was completely irrelevant.

The Old Testament describes gods (Elohim) of the quality that we find in every people’s traditions: the gods of Homer and the gods of the Norse mythology but you, obviously, chose to believe the philosophical allegoric fantasies.

All Gods are fantasies until proven otherwise. Can you do that?

 

[Trimijopulos]

But regardless of any of that, what difference would it make if they postulated an explanation for "before the big bang?"

They would have managed to disengage the theory from the original myth by Lemaitre. You now not only touched the forbidden initial condition, but went even further making the theory to sound like a perfect Creation myth.

The unborn god gave birth to himself and the universe all at once! (Egyptian theology).

 

[Trimijopulos]

I think that the gospel writers created Jesus from whole cloth – that there was no man whose words could be recorded. So the gospel-writers were entirely free to write in Greek.

My opinion was initially that they used some model story because there were Jewish men, historical persons, who rebelled against the Romans.
However, after I read about Bruno Bauer’s theory (Christ and the Caesars) I am inclined towards his thesis, meaning that the model story was that of Julius Caesar.

In any case, since the gospel writers decided to present Jesus s a Jew they should see to it that the gospels were written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic.

 

[Caladan]

If a case for something is good or valid, you are the one to say so.

True enough. 'whatever works for you' is fine by me. but I just don't see people who have no belief in the supernatural as being close minded.

 

[Trimijopulos]

So?

In any case, that's irrelevant

Again, irrelevant.

All of that was completely irrelevant.

I do not treat the evidence of the other guy in this way…

God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Evolution of the God Gene - NYTimes.com
Are we hardwired for God? | Books | guardian.co.uk

If that's not the explanation, please present an alternative. Also, "magic" is not allowed.

…I did visit these pages although I knew all about the God gene.

Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.

The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and author of the 2005 book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.
In his book, Hamer also writes "Just because spirituality is partly genetic doesn't mean it is hardwired."

Pascal Boyer tells us in his opening chapter that "religion is about the existence and causal powers of nonobservable entities and agencies."

These Gentlemen are either pulling your leg or they are completely ignorant about the subject they are supposed to have studied.
What people believe today it is what the schools are teaching and the priests are preaching. The supposed God gene only triggered the religious thoughts and then retreated in the depths of our brains.

What were the thoughts and fantasies that the Gg produced initially? Your beloved thinkers keep silent on this particular topic because apart from the fact that they do not know (it takes a lot of reading to find out) from what little they know they are realizing that it would not be in the benefit of their theory to mention it.

Do I have to repeat the epithets Dawkins used for the God described in the OT?
I do not deem it necessary. The God described in the OT is a wicked murderous being.
The OT was written only about 3,000 years ago and it is based on oral traditions going back, say 10,000 years. What about the description of the gods “before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland,” as Mr. Wade wrote above?
Have you or he read older than the OT ancient texts from the Near East? Did he, Hamer or Boyer read the funerary texts before arriving at their childish conclusions?

They did not, because if they had they would have been obliged to explain the fact that the Gg was producing fantasies of monstrous gods enslaving people, raping women and killing children.

Which figurines were these?

You can see a summary of photographs of the figurines that had been produced continuously for almost 40,000 years in a http://dtango.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ceb7-cebcceb5ceb3ceaccebbceb7-cebcceb7cf84ceadcf81ceb1.pdf pdf file that contains a study of mine on the Great Mother. Unfortunately it is still in Greek but at least you can watch all of the photographs in one place.

 

[Willamena]

True enough. 'whatever works for you' is fine by me. but I just don't see people who have no belief in the supernatural as being close minded.

Well, 'whatever works for you' has specific connotations, but in any case, I agree that it's not what you believe that determines an open mind, but more a capacity to dissociate and compartmentalize.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

These Gentlemen are either pulling your leg or they are completely ignorant about the subject they are supposed to have studied.

Well, I'm more willing to trust their words and work more than yours - this is because they have presented logic and evidence in support of their claims, while you have presented neither.

What people believe today it is what the schools are teaching and the priests are preaching. The supposed God gene only triggered the religious thoughts and then retreated in the depths of our brains.

You obviously don't understand what the research was actually studying. It's talking about human's natural predisposition towards supernatural explanations in general, not about preferences for particular religions, which are obviously learned.

What were the thoughts and fantasies that the Gg produced initially? Your beloved thinkers keep silent on this particular topic because apart from the fact that they do not know (it takes a lot of reading to find out) from what little they know they are realizing that it would not be in the benefit of their theory to mention it.

You're talking nonsensically again. Either talk cogently and logically, or else don't bother.

Do I have to repeat the epithets Dawkins used for the God described in the OT?
I do not deem it necessary. The God described in the OT is a wicked murderous being.

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said. What argument do you think I'm trying to make?

The OT was written only about 3,000 years ago and it is based on oral traditions going back, say 10,000 years. What about the description of the gods “before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland,” as Mr. Wade wrote above?
Have you or he read older than the OT ancient texts from the Near East? Did he, Hamer or Boyer read the funerary texts before arriving at their childish conclusions?

You really are incredibly arrogant, aren't you? Did it ever cross your mind that you might know substantially less about this subject than other people might?

They did not, because if they had they would have been obliged to explain the fact that the Gg was producing fantasies of monstrous gods enslaving people, raping women and killing children.

Again, what nonsense are you talking about? The God gene is just an explanation for mankind's predisposition towards supernatural explanations in general. It does not predispose people towards any particular God myth or any particular interpretation of a God - merely explains how, when people need an explanation for something that they don't understand, they create a mythical, supernatural agency to explain it.

You really haven't read a single word of their research, have you?

You can see a summary of photographs of the figurines that had been produced continuously for almost 40,000 years in a http://dtango.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ceb7-cebcceb5ceb3ceaccebbceb7-cebcceb7cf84ceadcf81ceb1.pdf pdf file that contains a study of mine on the Great Mother. Unfortunately it is still in Greek but at least you can watch all of the photographs in one place.

Could you find me a source - in English - that establishes the age of these statues?

 

[Caladan]

Well, 'whatever works for you' has specific connotations, but in any case, I agree that it's not what you believe that determines an open mind, but more a capacity to dissociate and compartmentalize.

And in the case of this thread, my first reaction is why dissociate atheists?

 

[Iti oj]

Are theist just closed minded against all of earths other gods and religions?

 

[riley2112]

Are theist just closed minded against all of earths other gods and religions?

At first I was going to say no, being that a theist is someone that believes in a god or gods. But that may make some of them indeed closed minded about other gods. You have made a good point here. I never thought about it that way before.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Well, I'm more willing to trust their words and work more than yours - this is because they have presented logic and evidence in support of their claims, while you have presented neither.

The only evidence they could have presented resides in the words of those who, urged by the God gene, were the first to speak about gods.

You obviously don't understand what the research was actually studying. It's talking about human's natural predisposition towards supernatural explanations in general, not about preferences for particular religions, which are obviously learned.

According to the research the God gene is responsible for “mystic experiences, including the presence of God,” which means that it is due to the gene’s existence that the human mind produced the idea of the gods.

As regards spirituality, most probably the gene is to be blamed for the production of the idea of immortal soul as well. What do you think?

Do you know how the concept of the immortal soul was produced?

You really are incredibly arrogant, aren't you? Did it ever cross your mind that you might know substantially less about this subject than other people might?

There are others that know more than I do about this subject, but up to now I did not have the pleasure of meeting any of them.

Again, what nonsense are you talking about? The God gene is just an explanation for mankind's predisposition towards supernatural explanations in general. It does not predispose people towards any particular God myth or any particular interpretation of a God - merely explains how, when people need an explanation for something that they don't understand, they create a mythical, supernatural agency to explain it.

The only difference being that they created no explanatory supernatural agents. Those were created later by wise philosophers and theologians. I gave you evidence of the fact that it was the philosophers that linked the gods to the supernatural but what evidence is not to your liking you deem irrelevant.
The gods our ancient forefathers were talking about had no divine attributes at all. They were empirical ideas!!
Empirical ideas have nothing to do with the supernatural.

You really haven't read a single word of their research, have you?

Well, I have read at least the passages I quoted. No?

Could you find me a source - in English - that establishes the age of these statues?

Start by googling“Venus of Hohle Fels.”

 

[Reverend Rick]

Are theist just closed minded against all of earths other gods and religions?

Yes, I believe they are. :yes:

 

[Iti oj]

At first I was going to say no, being that a theist is someone that believes in a god or gods. But that may make some of them indeed closed minded about other gods. You have made a good point here. I never thought about it that way before.

so are said theist any more or less closed minded then atheist?
What if one made a point of studying all gods and all religions before confirming their belif or dis belief...?

 

[Reverend Rick]

so are said theist any more or less closed minded then atheist?

:no:

What if one made a point of studying all gods and all religions before confirming their belif or dis belief...?

They woud be an open minded person who reached a conclusion at which point they closed their mind about a subject because they now believe what ever they decided to believe or don't believe.

 

[riley2112]

so are said theist any more or less closed minded then atheist?
What if one made a point of studying all gods and all religions before confirming their belief or dis belief...?

If that indeed were the case then I do not feel you could consider that to be closed minded. As for theist being more or less closed minded then atheist, I am a theist, how ever most of the atheist I know would become theist if and when someone produced enough evidence to show the existence of a God. As for the theist I know , showing them evidence that God does not exist , may not make them lose belief in their God. But that may not be because of close mindedness. It could be that the evidence does not meet their needs of proof, plus the evidence that theist have for their belief may not be material evidence that an atheist would believe but would be considered strong evidence for the theist. However I can not speak for all atheist or theist, I am sure there would be different feelings depending on who you asked. So this is just My opinion.

 

[Iti oj]

:no:They woud be an open minded person who reached a conclusion at which point they closed their mind about a subject because they now believe what ever they decided to believe or don't believe.

so.....how many atheist here studied the claims of various religions and gods?

i know i did.

 

[Iti oj]

If that indeed were the case then I do not feel you could consider that to be closed minded. As for theist being more or less closed minded then atheist, I am a theist, how ever most of the atheist I know would become theist if and when someone produced enough evidence to show the existence of a God. As for the theist I know , showing them evidence that God does not exist , may not make them lose belief in their God. But that may not be because of close mindedness. It could be that the evidence does not meet their needs of proof, plus the evidence that theist have for their belief may not be material evidence that an atheist would believe but would be considered strong evidence for the theist. However I can not speak for all atheist or theist, I am sure there would be different feelings depending on who you asked. So this is just My opinion.

I think the only way to determin closed mindedness is to determin someones willingess to learn some one elses stance...This does not mean you have to agree with it or accept it or call it truth just, know and undrstand it...

 

[riley2112]

I think the only way to determin closed mindedness is to determin someones willingess to learn some one elses stance...This does not mean you have to agree with it or accept it or call it truth just, know and undrstand it...

we seem to be in agreement. It is about time.

 

[Iti oj]

we seem to be in agreement. It is about time.

Well good. I thought we agreed at least one other time.....or mayb e i liked you because your open minded.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think the only way to determin closed mindedness is to determin someones willingess to learn some one elses stance...This does not mean you have to agree with it or accept it or call it truth just, know and undrstand it...

Exactly :clap