If We All Became Atheists?

[PureX]

The burying and reverence for the dead doesn't necessarily imply anything spiritual. The truest belief, and demonstrable, were the Sun worshippers, and where we do actually rely on such for our existence. All the various other aspects of religious belief has mostly been an evolution as to such, with a reasonably logical conclusion as to one 'something' possibly being the cause of existence. All the rest - many tales, some truth, and a lot of woo - which has happened equally in the history of science and much else..

Calling it "woo" and claiming that it "evolved" doesn't make it any less universal, nor any less significant. Nor does it negate my point. Humans everywhere expressed this recognition of the divine behind/within nature from very, very early on in our timeline. And it has never diminished.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry, my wording then. For me, a theist believes in at least one deity (and may reject others).

Sure.

An atheist believes that no deities at all exist.

No.
An atheist is anyone that doesn't qualify as a theist.

 

[Heyo]

Atheists seem to think humans are just animals, doing what they are determined to do. Do you think humans are animals?

Do you know what an animal is? An animal is a member of the kingdom animalia. Humans fit the criteria.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one knows when we humans became capable of perceiving/conceiving (experiencing) the divine within nature. But the evidence of our having these experiences goes back as far as the evidence of human existence. It was already happening when we chose to bury our dead. And to bury them with the tools they would need to survive in an "afterlife".

Yeah... it's called superstition, which seems to result from type 2 cognition errors (aka, the false positive).

Most animals are actually quite prone to such. Especially those who are also seen as lunch by other predators.

 

[PureX]

Yeah... it's called superstition, which seems to result from type 2 cognition errors (aka, the false positive).

Most animals are actually quite prone to such. Especially those who are also seen as lunch by other predators.

There is no evidence anywhere of any animals being theistic (or superstitious) in any way. Yet among we humans, the evidence is commonplace and universal going back to the earliest days of human existence. So it would appear that whatever it is within us that causes us to experience the divine, is also that within us that sets us apart from all the other life forms of the Earth.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I disagree. I'ld say the exact opposite is true.

One needs to be aware of the idea of gods to HAVE belief in gods.
You don't need such awareness to not believe it.

I don't get why people make such a big deal out of this.
The word atheist is completely meaningless by itself. It merely notes an absence of something. It's a word which means "not a theist".
So not being a theist, for whatever reason (not knowing about gods is a good a reason as any), means to be atheist by default.


I don't get why people are so allergic to this word and why they insist on attaching all that baggage to it which is neither here nor there.

You're misrepresenting my argument. I have no 'allergy' to the word 'atheist.' My argument is that people aren't born atheist.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Calling it "woo" and claiming that it "evolved" doesn't make it any less universal, nor any less significant. Nor does it negate my point. Humans everywhere expressed this recognition of the divine behind/within nature from very, very early on in our timeline. And it has never diminished.

This isn't really true though, given that our written history is so short, and all other can only be inferred from the evidence left behind. The mere existence of so many different religious beliefs, and filling the spectrum as to possible ones, tends to show that evolution is just as much happening here as in other instances. With the proviso that some seem to think their particular belief system is the TRUE one, and as to which they will promote, fight for and over, and expect to be triumphant eventually. Not notice those who claim we are all born Muslims?

Perhaps you can't acknowledge that the 'divine' is merely a construct of your mind?

 

[PureX]

This isn't really true though, given that our written history is so short, and all other can only be inferred from the evidence left behind.

There is no other inference to be made. There are no other animals burying their dead with the implements they would need to live on. There are no other animals creating rituals to summon good fortune. There are no other animals that can even conceive of good fortunate or bad fortune. Everything we humans do, and are, that separates us from all the other animals is grounded in this ability to perceive the divine behind and within nature.

The mere existence of so many different religious beliefs, and filling the spectrum as to possible ones, tends to show that evolution is just as much happening here as in other instances.

You seem to imagine that "evolution" somehow negates the advent and significance of spirituality within humanity. But it doesn't. At all.

With the proviso that some seem to think their particular belief system is the TRUE one, and as to which they will promote, fight for and over, and expect to be triumphant eventually. Not notice those who claim we are all born Muslims?

Perhaps you can't acknowledge that the 'divine' is merely a construct of your mind?

Of course it is a construct of the mind. But then so is gravity. We experience "X" and then we construct labels and idealizations of what we think "X" is. It's what we humans do that none of the other animals do.

 

[Mock Turtle]

There is no other inference to be made. There are no other animals burying their dead with the implements they would need to live on. There are no other animals creating rituals to summon good fortune. There are no other animals that can even conceive of good fortunate or bad fortune. Everything we humans do, and are, that separates us from all the other animals is grounded in this ability to perceive the divine behind and within nature.

But how far back does this occur, given we don't have much evidence? Reverence for the dead still doesn't imply belief in life after death, and even if it did, it would still be in line with the erroneous beliefs that many had in earlier times. Think they somehow found an ultimate truth when they could hardly even understand their own bodies or behaviour? Plenty of woo survived even until several centuries back.

You seem to imagine that "evolution" somehow negates the advent and significance of spirituality within humanity. But it doesn't. At all.

The evidence seems to attest to evolution being involved in most processes, that's all.

Of course it is a construct of the mind. But then so is gravity. We experience "X" and then we construct labels and idealizations of what we think "X" is. It's what we humans do that none of the other animals do.

And probably because we developed symbolic language more than much else, but where the mind can so often deceive us. Given that we do tend to be prone to seeking easy solutions and probably accepting these when it suits us, even when they are wrong.

 

[Nakosis]

You're misrepresenting my argument. I have no 'allergy' to the word 'atheist.' My argument is that people aren't born atheist.

You are obviously using a different meaning for the word atheist.
If it helps, keep in mind, that when I identify as an atheist, it has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You are obviously using a different meaning for the word atheist.
If it helps, keep in mind, that when I identify as an atheist, it has nothing to do with what you are talking about.

How so?

Atheism is a theistic position. How is a person born with a position on theism?

 

[Nakosis]

How so?

Atheism is a theistic position. How is a person born with a position on theism?

Perhaps if you define your use of the term atheist, it will help.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Perhaps if you define your use of the term atheist, it will help.

I did in this thread. Atheism is the theistic position that holds no belief in God or gods. It is a position on theism, hence the root word; theism.

 

[Nakosis]

I did in this thread. Atheism is the theistic position that holds no belief in God or gods. It is a position on theism, hence the root word; theism.

So then are you saying that babies hold a belief in God?

 

[SalixIncendium]

So then are you saying that babies hold a belief in God?

No. That would make them theists. Please don't misrepresent what I say by putting words into my mouth. I said exactly what I meant.

Newborn babies hold no theistic position because they are unaware of theism or the concept of God or gods. Therefore, they can neither be called atheist nor theist.

 

[PureX]

But how far back does this occur, given we don't have much evidence? Reverence for the dead still doesn't imply belief in life after death, and even if it did, it would still be in line with the erroneous beliefs that many had in earlier times. Think they somehow found an ultimate truth when they could hardly even understand their own bodies or behaviour? Plenty of woo survived even until several centuries back.

Look at you, fighting the obvious tooth and nail!

Burying our dead goes back a very long time. And is common among early humans wherever they were living. It doesn't matter if they thought there was an afterlife or not. What matters is that they perceived a spirit within their fellow humans that deserved their respect and care even after the body of their fellow humans had died. It is this perceived spirit within nature, animating nature, transcending nature, that sets humans apart from all other animals, and in fact defines us as human to a large degree. And this is as true today as it was true many thousands of years ago.

The evidence seems to attest to evolution being involved in most processes, that's all.

Everything 'evolves'. The question is why. And into what?

And probably because we developed symbolic language more than much else, but where the mind can so often deceive us. Given that we do tend to be prone to seeking easy solutions and probably accepting these when it suits us, even when they are wrong.

We are capable of asking questions that no other life forms are even capable of formulating. So of course we end up asking questions that we cannot determine the answers for with any degree of surety. So we adopt various possibilities and try them out. And many times we are wrong. And then we fight being wrong when we wanted to be right.

It's who we humans are. It's what we do. And it's quite extraordinary. As no other life forms we know of does anything like it.

 

[Secret Chief]

I guarantee that the answer won't be "yes".

Babies can think about that question and then give a considered answer? Are you sure? Does gurgling constitute a statement of their beliefs?

 

[Secret Chief]

No. That would make them theists. Please don't misrepresent what I say by putting words into my mouth. I said exactly what I meant.

Newborn babies hold no theistic position because they are unaware of theism or the concept of God or gods. Therefore, they can neither be called atheist nor theist.

Hard work isn't it.

 

[Secret Chief]

They don't have to.

In your opinion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then you have such absolute double standards. You don't ask the atheist, but only the theist. That's bigotry.


You should do the research. Not be spooned.

Again. Maybe you just searched for the name. Maybe you are used to such shallow, lame research. Quick google search of a name. Not the whole thing someone said. Just because they are theists.

Born Believers - Justin Barrett.

There you go. I spoon fed you. Now you can go do some shallow research once more and come back with an ad hominem towards the research project as a whole. I didn't tell you to do the research for me mate. I told you to do a proper research about the person and the study I gave you.

Weak bluff.

You can do better, even without being reasonable.

Try again. Or better yet, do not.