It would be pretty much a miracle if there were no religious people

MonkeyBalls

Let's say for the sake of argument, as a given, the world came about through natural un-magical means.

Some basic facts:

1. The human mind is not wired to automatically access the whole spectrum of truth; education is just as much about unlearning what is wrong, than learning what is right. Much of what we find intuitively true is entirely wrong (e.g. our folk-understanding of the physical world, and the facts that the best physics has revealed).

2. All this complexity in living organisms and the powerfully convincing appearance of purposiveness (the product of replicators mimicking "backwards causation" or teleology") in the natural world is going to lead most human minds to the default conclusion of least mental resistance: there must be a magical creator.

3. The behaviour and delusions of the unthinking masses is predictable and inevitable, and possibly ineradicable - if not the outward beliefs themselves then at least the root of false intuitions that lies at the core of religion.

MagicMarker

ok?

MonkeyBalls

MagicMarker wrote: »

ok?

Thanks for your contribution.

Maybe that's how you have almost 10 thousand posts.

MagicMarker

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Thanks for your contribution.

Maybe that's how you have almost 10 thousand posts.

I post, the number on the left goes up. Yes, that's generally how it works.

You haven't asked a question, you haven't asked for opinions. How would you like people to contribute?

Ickle Magoo

I like the ironic title...

jimmycrackcorm

from a religious perspective, the miracle would correctly be the opposite.

MonkeyBalls

MagicMarker wrote: »

I post, the number on the left goes up. Yes, that's generally how it works.

You haven't asked a question, you haven't asked for opinions. How would you like people to contribute?

I was suggesting your posts must be fairly crap.

Do I need to say "I am asking for your opinions", you're not able to tell that it's implied?

Joey the lips

It would be prity much a miracle if there were no religious athiest people

There you go.....All fixed

Turtwig

Yet there exists (or existed) many tribes both in history and in the present where God's did not exist.
1 : The human mind is currently wired to believe in deities. If natural selection were to choose a different course this "wiring" disappear.
2 : Complexity is just an illusion. If the brain understands the naturalistic processes behind something then complexity becomes simplicity.
3 : You cannot call something a delusion unless you know with 100% certainty that what they're seeing or imagining isn't true. As such a feat is impossible, we are all deluded.

Gambler

Yes the human mind naturally looks for pattern's so coincidence looks like a "greater plan" and evolution can look like "intelligent design" so there will always be people that look at these things and believe there is something "more" to it.

However I do think it's possible for the majority of people in time to see the wonder of the natural world for what it is and marvel in the beauty of that instead of attributing it to a higher power.

MonkeyBalls

Malty_T wrote: »

Yet there exists (or existed) many tribes both in history and in the present where God's did not exist.
1 : The human mind is currently wired to believe in deities. If natural selection were to choose a different course this "wiring" disappear.
2 : Complexity is just an illusion. If the brain understands the naturalistic processes behind something then complexity becomes simplicity.
3 : You cannot call something a delusion unless you know with 100% certainty that what they're seeing or imagining isn't true. As such a feat is impossible, we are all deluded.

What tribes are you talking about? I've gotta see this. To my knowledge, belief in god(s) is a human universal.

Complexity is no illusion - it's something which requires an explanation. Unless, that is, you're taking some philosophical stance.

You can call someone who believes in leprechauns and fairies deluded, even though you're not technically 100% sure "what they're seeing or imagining isn't true". It's just common sense.

MonkeyBalls

Gambler wrote: »

However I do think it's possible for the majority of people in time to see the wonder of the natural world for what it is and marvel in the beauty of that instead of attributing it to a higher power.

I hope so.

Joey the lips

The human mind does not look for patterns. There is no pattern to religion there is just a belief. Simular there is no pattern to love just an emotion. Otherwise we could bottle it.

What the human minds suffers from is the ability to beieve what it is told. Classic being "Santa will get you for christmas...." however the bible just like the koran is documented so its not a matter if you believes those events happened its a matter do you believe if those events relate to a higher being.

For what its work I think the more you examine the natural world the more spiritual you become. A classic example of this would be the indians. Granted the this not believe in god and jesus christ but they did believe in a god!

Herbal Deity

Joey the lips wrote: »

The human mind does not look for patterns.

rofl

MonkeyBalls

Joey the lips wrote: »

The human mind does not look for patterns.

Wrong. It does. Psychologists have shown that we infer patterns where they do not exist.

Herbal Deity

Joey the lips wrote: »

For what its work I think the more you examine the natural world the more spiritual you become. A classic example of this would be the indians. Granted the this not believe in god and jesus christ but they did believe in a god!

I don't really know what you mean by this. Primitive civilizations believing in god(s) hasn't got anything to do with becoming "more spiritual" as a result of examining the natural world. What percentage of scientists are religious? Scientists are, by definition, people who examine the natural world. I think you'll find that these days the exact opposite of what you've said above is true.

Turtwig

Joey the lips wrote: »

What the human minds suffers from is the ability to beieve what it is told. Classic being "Santa will get you for christmas...." however the bible just like the koran is documented so its not a matter if you believes those events happened its a matter do you believe if those events relate to a higher being.

For what its work I think the more you examine the natural world the more spiritual you become. A classic example of this would be the indians. Granted the this not believe in god and jesus christ but they did believe in a god!

I was going to reply to OP, but you butted in first and I have to correct you on these.

The human mind does not look for patterns.

*False*.
We tend to explain everything by patterns even mere everyday events that seem improbable we seem to attribute to "something". Very often this helps us understand something about nature or how something works, although every so often it goes overboard and misses the mark by a galactic lightyear.
There was a tribe in Africa/Asia (cannot remember where offhand) and they used to receive Aid drops and health check up from doctors thats arrived in aeroplanes.As a result the tribe started worshipping the aeroplanes as a God.
So much so, that for some bizarre reason they spent more and more time to worshipping replica planes than letting the doctors examine them.
Excellent video below:

For what its work I think the more you examine the natural world the more spiritual you become. A classic example of this would be the indians. Granted the this not believe in god and jesus christ but they did believe in a god!

Depends how the examination of the natural world is done.
If you approach it looking for philosophical or spiritual answers then you risk getting the "wrong" answers, if you're just searching for answer and acknowledging that you may never find them then you will begin to understand how the world actually works. You may make mistakes, but you'll be far more likely to be open to these mistakes than someone who found the answer they really wanted, regardless of whether it is true.

Turtwig

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

What tribes are you talking about? I've gotta see this. To my knowledge, belief in god(s) is a human universal.

Here's an example of a present day one.
Brief Audio.

Complexity is no illusion - it's something which requires an explanation. Unless, that is, you're taking some philosophical stance.

Complexity is an illusion any process in nature can usually be explained by simplistic means. The math might get complicated but individual sums are simple.
I love this illustration.

You can call someone who believes in leprechauns and fairies deluded, even though you're not technically 100% sure "what they're seeing or imagining isn't true". It's just common sense.

In reality though you can't because common sense isn't the tool we should use to determine reality as common sense misleads us nearly all the time.
3 Simple examples.
Boiling Water causes it to freeze faster.
When travelling in a car and you suddenly slam the breaks you are thrown forward. Yet if you held a balloon on a string it would shoot backwards towards the rear window.
"Poisoning" someone with a disease causing virus actually boosts their immune system.

I have tonnes more examples if you need them
Common sense : The worst possible thing to follow when it comes to understanding nature.

liamw

Off topic, Jakkass do you just thank every single post from a Christian on the atheist forum? Gets a bit meaningless, although it helps me identify the Christian posts quickly.

Herbal Deity

liamw wrote: »

Off topic, Jakkass do you just thank every single post from a Christian on the atheist forum? Gets a bit meaningless, although it helps me identify the Christian posts quickly.

I've noticed this too. He seems to thank things you wouldn't expect him to necessarily agree with either, and that post above would be a prime example.

Joey the lips

Who ever said I am a christian.... If you assume that you are guilty of the condesending nature you assume catholics have....but thanks for the compliment!

Christian.....:rolleyes:

liamw

Joey the lips wrote: »

Who ever said I am a christian.... If you assume that you are guilty of the condesending nature you assume catholics have....but thanks for the compliment!

Christian.....:rolleyes:

Whatever. Your post backed up belief in God

Joey the lips

liamw wrote: »

Whatever. Your post backed up belief in God

I can see how that makes me a christian.... Sour cream anyone! I say again.... Condesending....

liamw

Joey the lips wrote: »

I can see how that makes me a christian.... Sour cream anyone! I say again.... Condesending....

I don't care if you are Christian or not. It makes no difference to my point to Jakkass. Now why don't you try responding to all those people who pointed out fallacies in your argument...

Herbal Deity

Joey the lips wrote: »

Who ever said I am a christian.... If you assume that you are guilty of the condesending nature you assume catholics have....but thanks for the compliment!

Christian.....:rolleyes:

You're not a Christian?

MonkeyBalls

Malty_T wrote: »

Here's an example of a present day one.
Brief Audio.


Complexity is an illusion any process in nature can usually be explained by simplistic means. The math might get complicated but individual sums are simple.
I love this illustration.

In reality though you can't because common sense isn't the tool we should use to determine reality as common sense misleads us nearly all the time.
3 Simple examples.
Boiling Water causes it to freeze faster.
When travelling in a car and you suddenly slam the breaks you are thrown forward. Yet if you held a balloon on a string it would shoot backwards towards the rear window.
"Poisoning" someone with a disease causing virus actually boosts their immune system.

I have tonnes more examples if you need them
Common sense : The worst possible thing to follow when it comes to understanding nature.

1. That tribe believes in spirits. That's the same basic supernatural universal delusion I'm talking about. Such delusion takes different forms depending on the culture.

2. You are using semantic sleight of hand here, or perhaps we've just encountered a miscommunication. Just because complexity of structure (e.g. the human eye) can be broken down into simple constituent parts, doesn't mean that complexity in this context is an "illusion". The eye is a complex organ, taken as a whole. Simple as that; don't read too much into it.

3. Don't mix up common sense with intuition. Actually, discard that word if it misleads you. Try not to think too much in specific words here. For all intents and purposes, it would be utterly ridiculous to insist that we cannot call someone, who worships invisible pink elephants that talk to him at night in Klingon, deluded.

Flamed Diving

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

What tribes are you talking about? I've gotta see this. To my knowledge, belief in god(s) is a human universal.

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

1. That tribe believes in spirits. That's the same basic supernatural universal delusion I'm talking about. Such delusion takes different forms depending on the culture.

MonkeyBalls

^ Though that's pretty funny, again, it's purely semantic.

"Spirits" and "Gods" are rooted in the same thing. You could replace one word with another.

I concede that there may be some very small tribes which do not believe in gods but instead believe in spirits. These "spirits" are probably part of some pre-packaged story about the origins and meaning of the world.

Flamed Diving

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

^ Though that's pretty funny, again, it's purely semantic.

"Spirits" and "Gods" are rooted in the same thing. You could replace one word with another.

I concede that there may be some very small tribes which do not believe in gods but instead believe in spirits. These "spirits" are probably part of some pre-packaged story about the origins and meaning of the world.

It is not semantic, which is a word I particularly dislike due to its shameless misuse by people on message boards. Spirits and God/s are quite distinct creatures, not at all to be confused or bandied together in some clumsy generalisation. You shifted the goalposts. Plain and simple. Buddhism is another example of a godless religion, for the record.

MonkeyBalls

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It is not semantic, which is a word I particularly dislike due to its shameless misuse by people on message boards. Spirits and God/s are quite distinct creatures, not at all to be confused or bandied together in some clumsy generalisation. You shifted the goalposts. Plain and simple. Buddhism is another example of a godless religion, for the record.

Let's spell this out, again. You seem to be missing the underlying message.

1. It doesn't matter one bit if it's ghosts, spirits, gods, or banshees. The human mind has a propensity towards imputing supernatural causation to explain events in the world, including its existence.

2. This basic underlying supernatural predisposition takes numerous forms, depending on the cultural context.

3. "Gods" are the most common manifestation, so I used that one.

The whole central point is not effected one way or another: if supernatural inclinations are innate, and education involves unlearning our delusions, then it's little wonder that the majority of unthinking people go for the default position - institutionalised religion or some form of spiritual worship.

Flamed Diving

Define what you mean by delusion.

pH

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

I concede that there may be some very small tribes which do not believe in gods but instead believe in spirits. These "spirits" are probably part of some pre-packaged story about the origins and meaning of the world.

That's just not true, a reasonable percentage of the world's population doesn't believe in a God (in a common sense understanding of the term). And throughout history there have been many tribes and cultures who you'd describe as "Ancestor Worshippers" rather than "God believers".

However, if you want to broaden it and say that the vast majority of human cultures have incorporated some form of supernatural beliefs in explaining the world around them, then I think you wouldn't get much argument about that.

However I'm not sure that supernatural inclinations are innate (as you say), well not in any meaningful way. 50 Years ago you could have argued that humans had always treated disease with supernatural remedies, yet today the vast majority of the population accepts non-supernatural causes and treatments. People wanted their diseases treated with something, and the supernatural was all that there was, however it would be incorrect to deduce from that that there was something innate in the preferring or choosing supernatural cures. As can be seen today (in Western civilisations), the number of people who accept supernatural explanations and treatments for serious diseases is very small.

I think cutting through all this is the basic fact that humans prefer AN EXPLANATION to NO EXPLANATION. We seem to be hard-wired to prefer a solution to nothing, saying "I haven't a clue" just isn't really in us.

This leads us then to an obvious outcome, for primitive peoples, supernatural explanations were the best they had, so they stuck to them and believed in them. I'm don' t think there's any innate preference for a supernatural explanation, merely as I said above a preference for one over nothing.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

MonkeyBalls

pH wrote: »

That's just not true, a reasonable percentage of the world's population doesn't believe in a God (in a common sense understanding of the term). And throughout history there have been many tribes and cultures who you'd describe as "Ancestor Worshippers" rather than "God believers".

However, if you want to broaden it and say that the vast majority of human cultures have incorporated some form of supernatural beliefs in explaining the world around them, then I think you wouldn't get much argument about that.

However I'm not sure that supernatural inclinations are innate (as you say), well not in any meaningful way. 50 Years ago you could have argued that humans had always treated disease with supernatural remedies, yet today the vast majority of the population accepts non-supernatural causes and treatments. People wanted their diseases treated with something, and the supernatural was all that there was, however it would be incorrect to deduce from that that there was something innate in the preferring or choosing supernatural cures. As can be seen today (in Western civilisations), the number of people who accept supernatural explanations and treatments for serious diseases is very small.

I think cutting through all this is the basic fact that humans prefer AN EXPLANATION to NO EXPLANATION. We seem to be hard-wired to prefer a solution to nothing, saying "I haven't a clue" just isn't really in us.

This leads us then to an obvious outcome, for primitive peoples, supernatural explanations were the best they had, so they stuck to them and believed in them. I'm don' t think there's any innate preference for a supernatural explanation, merely as I said above a preference for one over nothing.

Good post. Some points:

Yes, there are many atheists, but I'm talking about cultures in the aggregate, e.g. the way Donald Brown compiled the list of human universals. There is no large scale society or culture which has no supernatural beliefs. (though of course I don't mean without gods - that was just shorthand for supernatural beliefs; there are obviously religions such as Buddhism and various strands of Taoism that have no gods, and there are religions which do not believe in an afterlife, etc etc).That's not the same thing as saying there are many people within these societies who have no religious belief.

As for supernatural inclinations being innate, I base this not on the simple fact that tribal and primitive people tend to go for supernatural explanations (because the human mind craves certainty and some kind of paradigm through which to make sense of the world, and in the absence of a natural one - as you said - they will seek out an easy-to-grasp or intuitive supernatural one), but instead I base the innate argument on various psychological studies which paint a pretty convincing picture of innate aspects of the mind that, combined together, lead to an intuitive "folk biology" or "essentialism" (e.g. thinking people and animals and plants have some immutable elan vital that defines their being; it's just one step away from imputing souls into the molecular clockwork of the mind.)

That's just a rough summary.
If you're on New Scientist, there's a good article here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html

Flamed Diving

Good to see those goalposts still zipping around the place.

rohatch

FFS

round and round and round we go


religion is fine

once

the participants are over 18
it is NOT a subject in school
it has NO power in government

Turtwig

rohatch wrote: »

religion is fine

it is NOT a subject in school

I don't know about you but I want religion taught in schools (just no preferential treatment given to any) because whether we like it or not it is part of our cultural identity.

liamw

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't know about you but I want religion taught in schools (just no preferential treatment given to any) because whether we like it or not it is part of our cultural identity.

As a part of history class perhaps.Don't really think it should be a subject in itself.

rohatch

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't know about you but I want religion taught in schools (just no preferential treatment given to any) because whether we like it or not it is part of our cultural identity.

Our cultural identity is celt, not some deluded frock wearing pedophalic lunatics preaching from italy to people to live a certain way.

Religion should be off the cards for all children in schools, if their parents are foolish enough to believe then they can indoctrinate at home, but realistically I would like them to be charged with abuse if they were like some of the mods on christianity.

MonkeyBalls

rohatch wrote: »

FFS

round and round and round we go


religion is fine

once

the participants are over 18
it is NOT a subject in school
it has NO power in government

It's retarded and pernicious to the core - the acceptance of mass stupidity establishes a safe haven for the promulgation of more dangerous forms of stupidity, such as fundamentalism.

Gambler

Sorry but I had to point this out in relation to origin myths being "universal"

The tribe, he maintains, has no collective memory that extends back more than one or two generations, and no original creation myths. Marco Antonio Gonçalves, an anthropologist at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, spent eighteen months with the Pirahã in the nineteen-eighties and wrote a dissertation on the tribe’s beliefs. Gonçalves, who spoke limited Pirahã, agrees that the tribe has no creation myths but argues that few Amazonian tribes do. When pressed about what existed before the Pirahã and the forest, Everett says, the tribespeople invariably answer, “It has always been this way.”

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto

Gambler

rohatch wrote: »

Our cultural identity is celt, not some deluded frock wearing pedophalic lunatics preaching from italy to people to live a certain way.

Actually I believe that cultural identity is not what we were but who we are. That means that it is no more celt than it is a roman catholic nation any more. Our culture is now one of a modern civilisation with a hodge podge of people who have different belief systems (including the belief that there is no "higher power") and are primarily concerned with paying the bills and raising their kids right.

rohatch

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

It's retarded and pernicious to the core - the acceptance of mass stupidity establishes a safe haven for the promulgation of more dangerous forms of stupidity, such as fundamentalism.

Its about time we had a government with balls to get rid of this cancer.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

robindch

rohatch wrote: »

Its about time we had a government with balls to get rid of this cancer.

How on earth do balls get rid of cancer?

Anyhow, yesterday's temporary forum ban for rohatch didn't happen for a variety of reasons, most of them related to a hyperventilating 3-year old and a lemon sponge cake. Now that one of them has been eaten and the other put to bed, rohatch has finally received his early christmas break from A+A. Apologies for this unseemly lapse in forum moderation.

MonkeyBalls

Gambler wrote: »

Sorry but I had to point this out in relation to origin myths being "universal"

That's interesting. I read before about tribes that like, who supposedly live in the "perpetual now", or something like that.

What's universal may not be "origin myths", but some form of belief in the supernatural/religion.

Perhaps that piraha tribe haven't codified their beliefs, but surely they have some beliefs about the origin of the world. Some curiosity.
Anthropology is riddled with biased and false reporting. Consider Margaret Mead's depictions of the Samoans. And so we may be missing something here.

Gambler

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

That's interesting. I read before about tribes that like, who supposedly live in the "perpetual now", or something like that.

What's universal may not be "origin myths", but some form of belief in the supernatural/religion.

From what I can gather the only supernatural beliefs they have are in spirits, not gods:

The Pirahã do not have gods. They believe in spirits. These "spirits" can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Perhaps that piraha tribe haven't codified their beliefs, but surely they have some beliefs about the origin of the world. Some curiosity.
Anthropology is riddled with biased and false reporting. Consider Margaret Mead's depictions of the Samoans. And so we may be missing something here.

The fact that most people come from a culture that gives these things importance doesn't mean that a tribe in the middle of the amazon that only made contact with the rest of the world in our life time does..

I can't see why you find it so difficult to believe that there is a group of people somewhere in the world that are more concerned with hunting\growing and harvesting than they are with where the world came from.

Flamed Diving

Gambler wrote: »

From what I can gather the only supernatural beliefs they have are in spirits, not gods.

What you fail to realise is that, in monkeyballs world, spirits implies gods implies spirits. Or whatever manipulation required to further your cause.

MonkeyBalls

Gambler wrote: »

I can't see why you find it so difficult to believe that there is a group of people somewhere in the world that are more concerned with hunting\growing and harvesting than they are with where the world came from.

Why not both?

A total absence of origin myths is unusual, given the universal human propensity towards the supernatural. And it is difficult to believe that a group of people could be so utterly incurious. One of the defining features of our humanity is our curiosity.

rohatch

robindch wrote: »

How on earth do balls get rid of cancer?

Pointless.

I think we need a real atheism forum where we actually start protesting the government to get rid of religion in ALL public life.

All you atheist lite or agnostic should go and play somewhere else.

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, yesterday's temporary forum ban for rohatch didn't happen for a variety of reasons, most of them related to a hyperventilating 3-year old and a lemon sponge cake. Now that one of them has been eaten and the other put to bed, rohatch has finally received his early christmas break from A+A. Apologies for this unseemly lapse in forum moderation.

Whats the rules on keeping mod decisions private. It is no one else's business here why my 1 week ban was late.

Flamed Diving

Hey rohatch, pay real close attention to this schema now...

atheism =/=> anti-theism

Nor does atheism automatically imply pro-secularism. Do you know what atheism implies?

There is no god.

There's a good boy.