-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
I hate it when I don't exist!
Even if humans are generally hardwired for belief in deity -- and that's a big if -- humans show remarkable genetic diversity for some traits and it seems possible that there would be genetic diversity for a trait like belief in deity.
Moreover, even if all humans are hardwired for belief in deity that would not mean belief in deity was any more correct, moral, or wise than, say, war, for a rather strong case has been made by some scientists that humans are generally hardwired for war.
Moreover, even if all humans are hardwired for belief in deity that would not mean belief in deity was any more correct, moral, or wise than, say, war, for a rather strong case has been made by some scientists that humans are generally hardwired for war.
So scientists have just figured out what I've been saying for years, ie, that I never made a decision
to disbelieve in gods, & that we're wired differently from believers? Someone get me a big fat grant.
to disbelieve in gods, & that we're wired differently from believers? Someone get me a big fat grant.
In other news, Witches don't exist either. Pay no mind to the one typing on this keyboard...
Although the article is interesting, it's problematic. It is making the mistake of confounding (a)theism and religions or other ideas found within religions that may or may not be connected to (a)theism. They could build a better case suggesting that humans are fundamentally religious - that is to say, we are all storytellers, meaning makers, and truth seekers. Whether or not the "god" label is used in all that is a superficiality.
Although the article is interesting, it's problematic. It is making the mistake of confounding (a)theism and religions or other ideas found within religions that may or may not be connected to (a)theism. They could build a better case suggesting that humans are fundamentally religious - that is to say, we are all storytellers, meaning makers, and truth seekers. Whether or not the "god" label is used in all that is a superficiality.
Religious behavior is part of who we are. Deification is also something inherent to our psyche.
HOWEVER, neither of these personal observations of mine (don't cite them on your scientific paper; I don't think they even qualify as hypotheses) are indications that atheism doesn't exist. Religious behavior here (which might more accurately be called "religious-like behavior) is any formulation and rapid spread of myth, recreating that myth in ritual, and explaining that myth in philosophy (myth, ritual, and philosophy being my threefold definition of what makes a religion). The presence of this behavior does not indicate the presence of a named religion.
Furthermore, deification is the process by which something or someone becomes a God in the eye and mind of an observer (either an individual or group). However, this might be thought of as a bit of a misnomer, because it doesn't necessarily mean that it always results in something or someone becoming a God in the classical/common sense of the term. Take, for example, pop idols or movie stars. Fans of such people deify them, sometimes even projecting their own values onto these people without knowing whether or not they actually hold them, or thinking that they can "do no wrong", but still not regarded as a classical God.
HOWEVER, neither of these personal observations of mine (don't cite them on your scientific paper; I don't think they even qualify as hypotheses) are indications that atheism doesn't exist. Religious behavior here (which might more accurately be called "religious-like behavior) is any formulation and rapid spread of myth, recreating that myth in ritual, and explaining that myth in philosophy (myth, ritual, and philosophy being my threefold definition of what makes a religion). The presence of this behavior does not indicate the presence of a named religion.
Furthermore, deification is the process by which something or someone becomes a God in the eye and mind of an observer (either an individual or group). However, this might be thought of as a bit of a misnomer, because it doesn't necessarily mean that it always results in something or someone becoming a God in the classical/common sense of the term. Take, for example, pop idols or movie stars. Fans of such people deify them, sometimes even projecting their own values onto these people without knowing whether or not they actually hold them, or thinking that they can "do no wrong", but still not regarded as a classical God.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I'm sure many theists would love to be able to just wish atheists away.
If "brain is wired" is a euphamism for utilizing logic, then yes, that's the case.
outhouse
Atheistically
Perverted from our instinctual parental love, who often die before us and we imagine they are in heaven which probably started from the way smoke rises.
Also our imagination trying to answer questions regarding nature we had no clue how to answer.
Theist will never stop perverting reality and this article is no different.
outhouse
Atheistically
The title of the article is misleading. An instinctive tendency to look for supernatural or metaphysical explanations is not the same thing as believing with certainty that there is/are (an) intelligent, intangible being(s) controlling the cosmos. Besides, human beings are capable of recognizing that their instincts are not always indicative of facts. A person can be frightened of a bug even if they know that it is completely harmless.
Too bad. I was looking forward to the superpower of phasing from existence at will.
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
The arguments in that article which I'm sure I've read repeatedly in some form or other in many other places pretty much just quickly break down for me. It's a good article and a good writer, but I could literally go point by point at this point with it. For example with the ghosts and reincarnation thing, that doesn't have to give you a religion at all if you entertain either of those. Science is in the fore with saying there are many things you can't perceive. A ghost would be comparable to the many colors the human eye can't see or distant sounds you can't hear, things that science says are there. Interconnection with everything, science is constantly discovering new information on that. I think the Greek word I was trying to remember was biophilia, a word for our great interconnectedness.
See I always assumed we were born kind of as a blank slate for parents, culture, education to mold our personality.
Now I'm finding that some of or personality is hardwired. Not that Atheist don't exist but maybe there is a genetic component creates a personality that is causes a person to atheism and/or in the same sense to become religious.
Say religious experience happens on a subconscious level. Perhaps some brains are not wired for them. Can't relate to the experience at all. While others have an experience that can cause anything from belief to believing they are a Prophet of God.
Some will have a need for God, others won't.
Probably enough genetic variance that there are those who may go either way. Believers becoming non-believers, non-believers becoming believers.
A non-believer seeks answers, more likely to continue in education looking for those answers. Religiously wired folks already have their answers. No need to worry about a better education.
It's all speculation, but if there were any truth to is, just means less need to pass judgement on religious/non-religious folks. Some were born atheist and some weren't...
Emotions and expressions are hardwired. I think whats being discussed are just more complex versions of our emotions.
At an early age, this can be very hard to control and mechanical. But over time, we can learn to unlearn these emotions simply by understanding the perception of the situation. A simple example is fear of the dark.
So maybe, we are born with these non-athiest traits but through our experiences and own introspection, some then can unlearn these traits to become athiests.
At an early age, this can be very hard to control and mechanical. But over time, we can learn to unlearn these emotions simply by understanding the perception of the situation. A simple example is fear of the dark.
So maybe, we are born with these non-athiest traits but through our experiences and own introspection, some then can unlearn these traits to become athiests.
Skwim
Veteran Member
You may be impressed by the musings and spacy concoctions of a science writer and sometimes children's author, Nury Vittachi in this case, but this nonsense you linked to is nothing but speculative garbage.
I find people come in a lot of varieties. What you feel yourself capable of and what you'd expect others to be capable of is not always the case.
I question my thinking, my experiences a lot. I didn't really choose to be that way. I know a number of people driven by instinct and emotion. That you aren't maybe more a matter of genetics than choice.
A baby is born with 9 personality traits,
These 9 Temperament Traits Will Help You Understand Your Baby
Say my adaptability allows me to be a little more flexible with my thinking so I'm more likely to entertain new ideas about God or Science.
Whereas I lack persistence, so if I come across too many obstacles in one belief I'll more likely seek another explanation.
If you have a better answer of why believers are believes I'm happy to listen. However I don't think the idea of this being linked to education is any less speculative.
Not everyone overcomes their fear of the dark... Why?
I understand most people would prefer to believe they made an actual choice to believe or not.
I tend to believe people don't have that much actual choice. I think perhaps we justify our thinking after the fact. We are conscious of the justification. The actual sub-conscious influences, not so much.