atheism is a (religious position)

[DNB]

So religions have done nothing to alter this? Why bother if it seems to be human nature? But it isn't for all, given that most people are not as you would seem to think. And you seem to have a highly cynical view of humanity driven by your religious beliefs - one of the deficits of religions all too often.

It's not human nature, human nature is neutral. It is man's heart - the spirit within him - which influence will he obey

 

[DNB]

No, we don't.
Even only for your very breakfast, you literally profit from the work and trust of hundreds of people.

Our entire society, from the ground up, depends on cooperation and trust.
When you go to the store to buy bread, you need to trust that the baker didn't poison it.
The baker has incentive to treat you well, so that you will return to his store.

In practically every aspect of your life, you depend on other people and cooperation with them.



The necessities of being able to survive and thrive as a social species.
And it's not uniquely human either. All social species have some form of morality (ie: rules of conduct in context of the social group)

Again, you're are referring to practicality, which, as you implied, is a necessity for survival - it cannot be achieved with chaos or anarchy.
But, there are those who still try to play or exploit the system for purely selfish and nefarious reasons. And, this demography is definitive in many ways of society, parliament and all authorities.
The expressions 'deceit' and 'lawyer' have become synonymous, as with 'law' and 'injustice', or 'politician' and 'liar', or 'police' and 'corrupt' - what should be some of the most noblest professions of our society.

 

[DNB]

Why?



Demonstrate these supposed consequences.
Demonstrate the harm they case. Actual harm, not just imagined harm.

They destroy character - you'll never find a demure or elegant porn star, or a liar with confidence, or a gentleman who's a playboy

 

[DNB]

You argue like a 5-year old.
You don't even bother to try and think things through.

Your "argument" is ridiculous.

just replying to the post in the same manner that it was written

 

[DNB]

And the eagle's eye also.

Every species has features that distincts them from all other species.
It's what makes them seperate species.

You have a seriously narcistic view of humans.
"Aren't we special"?

Yes, we are. But not in any sense that other species aren't special in their own way also.

What the flippin' heck are you talking about? There's no difference on the secular level - the body parts do not constitute an intrinsic and fundamental incongruity between one species and another. I'm talking about the intangible, and yet axiomatic dimension to man - his innate proclivity towards the spiritual, the transcendent, the non secular.

 

[DNB]

Your use of the word 'spiritual' is ambiguous here. If by 'spiritual' you mean 'of or deriving from the supernatural' then it's simply untrue. 'Spiritual traits and inclinations' arise from human nature and human acculturation.

My immediate reaction to this statement is that you're describing a trait very common in certain kinds of populist US Protestant religion.

You keep confusing human emotions with 'the spirit' ─ which is the product of acculturation and human emotions.

The evidence certainly points to one biological source. Possibly you may find >this< helpful.

Human acculturation is secularly derived. When I say 'spiritual', I am talking about the non secular, the transcendent, the immaterial, that which cannot be quantified but is axiomatically present - love, hate, greed, altruism, bigotries, lust, abuse, compassion, charity, etc...

 

[DNB]

Ah yes, another empty and rude dismissal of my post in its entirety. Wouldn't want to think to hard, eh?

Thought crimes are garbage. You might want to live under some totalitarian regime where such things are considered crimes, but I don't. And I see absolutely no evidence for that claim (or any of your claims at all, really). There are no consequences for thought crimes because they are just that ... thoughts. And thoughts only. Actions that harm people are actual crimes.

I see no further reason to continue responding to you, because you'll just blow it off and repeat yourself anyway, and then throw in a lame insult for good measure. Not interested.

I'm not immoral. Maybe you are though. You can speak for yourself, but not for me.

You replied to 5 more posts of mine after this one - can you please interpret: 'I see no further reason to continue responding to you'

 

[blü 2]

When I say 'spiritual', I am talking about the non secular, the transcendent, the immaterial, that which cannot be quantified but is axiomatically present - love, hate, greed, altruism, bigotries, lust, abuse, compassion, charity, etc...

The supernatural has nothing to do with love, hate, greed, altruism, bigotries, lust, abuse, compassion, charity or etcetera. As Edward FitzGerald's Omar put it ─

The revelations of devout and learn'd​

Who rose before us and as prophets burned​

Were all but stories, which, awoke from sleep​

They told their comrades, and to sleep returned,​

Because in fact, the supernatural is indistinguishable from the imaginary / purely conceptual, and has no more or less influence on human behavior than the imaginary / purely conceptual can have.

I've already drawn your attention to the role of identified biochemicals in human thinking and conduct. I've pointed out that 'lust' is associated, both in males and females, with testosterone, and with adrenaline. Love in the various senses of human bonding is associated with oxytocin. You need to get to understand about evolution, and where scientific and medical research is up to regarding human biology and psychology, and what research has shown to date about the structure of the human brain, the relationship of its particular areas to particular functions, and the interplay between those areas ─ and also the constant interaction of the brain with the body's hormonal system.

I speak as an interested amateur, but a great deal of hard information is out there. You could start with Wikipedia's article on the brain or you could look around for something more basic.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's not human nature, human nature is neutral. It is man's heart - the spirit within him - which influence will he obey

In your eyes perhaps, but any with some knowledge of human history, biology, neurology, and psychology will know that we have enough baggage from our past (as to what goes on in our heads regarding emotions and thoughts, etc.) as to this often interfering with any rational or reasonable behaviour. And such being a rather better explanation than your rather simplistic one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In your eyes perhaps, but any with some knowledge of human history, biology, neurology, and psychology will know that we have enough baggage from our past (as to what goes on in our heads regarding emotions and thoughts, etc.) as to this often interfering with any rational or reasonable behaviour. And such being a rather better explanation than your rather simplistic one.

Yes as long as you understand that even rational and reasonable have limits for what is and what we ought to do.
If someone ends up overdoing what those 2 can do, that can be dangerous to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The supernatural has nothing to do with love, hate, greed, altruism, bigotries, lust, abuse, compassion, charity or etcetera. As Edward FitzGerald's Omar put it ─

The revelations of devout and learn'd​

Who rose before us and as prophets burned​

Were all but stories, which, awoke from sleep​

They told their comrades, and to sleep returned,​

Because in fact, the supernatural is indistinguishable from the imaginary / purely conceptual, and has no more or less influence on human behavior than the imaginary / purely conceptual can have.

I've already drawn your attention to the role of identified biochemicals in human thinking and conduct. I've pointed out that 'lust' is associated, both in males and females, with testosterone, and with adrenaline. Love in the various senses of human bonding is associated with oxytocin. You need to get to understand about evolution, and where scientific and medical research is up to regarding human biology and psychology, and what research has shown to date about the structure of the human brain, the relationship of its particular areas to particular functions, and the interplay between those areas ─ and also the constant interaction of the brain with the body's hormonal system.

I speak as an interested amateur, but a great deal of hard information is out there. You could start with Wikipedia's article on the brain or you could look around for something more basic.

Yeah, but you can't reduce away the subjective and make it all objective. That is the end the demarcation between science and non-science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The supernatural has nothing to do with love, hate, greed, altruism, bigotries, lust, abuse, compassion, charity or etcetera. As Edward FitzGerald's Omar put it ─

The revelations of devout and learn'd​

Who rose before us and as prophets burned​

Were all but stories, which, awoke from sleep​

They told their comrades, and to sleep returned,​

Because in fact, the supernatural is indistinguishable from the imaginary / purely conceptual, and has no more or less influence on human behavior than the imaginary / purely conceptual can have.

I've already drawn your attention to the role of identified biochemicals in human thinking and conduct. I've pointed out that 'lust' is associated, both in males and females, with testosterone, and with adrenaline. Love in the various senses of human bonding is associated with oxytocin. You need to get to understand about evolution, and where scientific and medical research is up to regarding human biology and psychology, and what research has shown to date about the structure of the human brain, the relationship of its particular areas to particular functions, and the interplay between those areas ─ and also the constant interaction of the brain with the body's hormonal system.

I speak as an interested amateur, but a great deal of hard information is out there. You could start with Wikipedia's article on the brain or you could look around for something more basic.

Yeah, but you can't reduce away the subjective and make it all objective. That is the end the demarcation between science and non-science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's the whole point. Basic human ethics are instinctive; genetically programmed.

And in addition to our instinctive ethics, we're able to evaluate consequences and formulate abstract principles to measure our actions against. No religious rule book is needed.

Yes, as long as you understand that principles are in effect not objective or with evidence. They are social and psychological constructs just like religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree that morality is acquired instinctively, but, like most instincts in animals, it requires environmental triggers to work properly. It seems likely that children are genetically predisposed to acquire patterns of behavior from observing adults and copying those patterns. As they mature, it is quite natural to transfer parental authority to a deity or religious doctrine that functions as the continuing source of rationalization over what is right or wrong, good or bad. That may be one reason why so many religious people believe that atheism leads to immoral behavior. Atheists no longer rationalize their sense of right and wrong in terms of a moral authority that is similar to a parent, so they no longer have a legitimate basis for upholding the same values that god-fearing people use religion to rationalize. Hence, they often imagine that atheists can easily abandon the moral code that was never really learned from religion in the first place.

Well, that authority can also be transferred to other versions of objective authority.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Yes as long as you understand that even rational and reasonable have limits for what is and what we ought to do.
If someone ends up overdoing what those 2 can do, that can be dangerous to.

Just giving the basic evidence - not the detailed sort and variances.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, but you can't reduce away the subjective and make it all objective. That is the end the demarcation between science and non-science.

But you can remove the supernatural from all matters under consideration, and from all explanations offered, and get an accurate result.

Still, you knew that already.

 

[PureX]

They're as aware of it through instinct, just as we humans are aware of a lot of things through instinct ─ why in certain circumstances we fear the dark, get the creeps, hair 'stand on end' and so on.

That is not awareness.

Why we had bugles and drums to march into old battles, encouraging the group response. We're an animal first, with a bit more space than is usual left over for intellect.

That is your bias ... insisting that all phenomena comes from physicality and therefor physicality defines all phenomena. But in fact some phenomena are transcendent of physicality. Especially those that we call "metaphysical", like consciousness, and self-determination. They may be enabled by physicality, but they have evolved beyond it, to become a realm of possibility and will of it's own. That's the realm to which morality belongs.

Of course morality is evolved.

No, it happened because self/other conscious awareness evolved beyond the animal that it evolved within.

Obviously humans are better at being humans than any other species; but we've been so recklessly successful that now we're having to clean our own house. But we're simply a more expensive model of mammal, part of the natural world, not above it like we used to think. Nor would we be the first species to wipe itself out by consuming everything in sight till there was nothing left. We need to smarten up, look after each other, and the health of the planet as a whole, with its millions of species, probably many billions if we count the microorganisms that keep our bodies alive, grow the plants, and so on.

Again, this is all your bias, based on the presumption that physicality creates and defines all existence. When it doesn't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you can remove the supernatural from all matters under consideration, and from all explanations offered, and get an accurate result.

Still, you knew that already.

Yeah, but you can't make everything objective truth. And if you claim that, you are the same in effect.

 

[PureX]

Not all morality is learned morality. Unconsciously acquired altruistic behavior is functionally indistinguishable from learned behavior.

That's because it's all learned behavior once we humans became self/other conscious (aware). Like all animals we operated on instinct that was determined by genes and environmental circumstances at first. But at some point we developed an awareness of ourselves within our environment that enabled us to choose our course of action, and learn from the result. We were no longer tied to the dumb animal instincts within us from then on unless we chose to ignore that self/other awareness. As some of us do.

It does not require imagination or conscious choice.

Those are exactly what separates us from being just another dumb animal. They are what make us human. They are what make us moral/immoral.

 

[joelr]

Premise 1: Having a God Concept makes any belief system a religion - if a belief system features a belief about God then it is a religious belief system

Premise 2: Atheists have a God Concept. They have a position on God, an opinion on God that qualifies as a position and an opinion on God, even though Atheists either see no valid reason to believe in God or explicitly reject such a belief. The point is, they still have God-beliefs

You cannot spell "Atheist" without the word "Theist"

The Atheist God Concept is that God is made up by humans who didn't know any better and is nothing more than myth

Conclusion: Atheism is a religion

Edit: I no longer believe Atheism is a religion. But I do maintain that it is a religious position, so is the same type of thing as religions

Do you disbelieve in Zeus, Inana and Krishna? Is that a religious atheist position or simply a lack of belief?