It’s not really about whether you consider yourself an atheist or a theist. It’s about whether you seek, understand, and trust methodically gathered evidence, or you are satisfied with your own sentiments.
Atheists can become as attached to their personal sentiments every bit as easily as theists. Those two believers are like mirror images of each other. They both believe what their emotional sensibilities tell them. One, that the word, “God,” refers to a person who lives in the sky, and that person does exist. The other, that the word, “God,” refers to a person who lives in the sky, and that person does not exist.
Both literalists.
Both believers in their respective sentiments.
Both equally resistant to any and all scientific evidence contrary to their beliefs.
Both convinced they are being rational.
Both certain they are right.
The twins of literalism.
Both equally impervious to the long well-established, scientific consensus that Homo sapiens is a tool-using animal. And that those tools include both mechanical and intellectual technologies, like language, music, and art.
And that the psycho-technology of metaphor serves to enhance their reproductive fitness, or it would not exist, and persist in all H.sapiens populations, in all locations, of all time periods where and when H.sapiens populations are found.
And to the fact that H.sapiens are instinctively tribal, and natively resistant to evidence that runs counter to their familiar and comfortable sentiments - especially sentiments that have saved them from injury in the past.
6
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
12 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Seems to me that you are lumping all theists and atheists together as literalists. I disagree with that sentiment, if that is what you mean.
Hopefully you are acknowledging that there are a lot of us who aren't not set in our ways, and are open to new information, but just don't see it happening in our lifetimes.
I agree that many theists and atheists are literalists, and pretty set in their ways, and will likely never budge. But I have lots of conversations with people who straddle the edge between spiritual and non-religious.
These “nones” might be slightly religious in that they believe there is a higher power and prefer to call it God but may not think of that higher power as an old man in the sky.
The non-religious folk I talk with have the wonder and respect for nature and our source of creation and may or may not call that creative source God.
Personally, I don’t believe in the “old man in the sky” idea, but I think there is some energy out there that propels us forth, and I look forward to learning more about what that could be, if we learn what that is during my lifetime. I don’t pretend to know what it is, so I reserve judgment on that, but I’m open to learning what we can.
I prefer not to call this mysterious energy force “God” because I don’t want to be confused with someone who does believe in the “man in the sky” idea. Just my preference and while I don't believe in that God, I also don't believe in absolutes, so I'm not saying there isn't one, but just that I don't believe there is.
While I don’t like to, if someone really is bothered by the fact that I don’t believe in their God, I might soften my stance a bit and just say to them that what they call “God” I call “Nature” and that seems to create a bridge for us to meet in the middle.
I’m just saying that there are a lot of “spiritual but not religious” folks who might be theists or atheists, but they are open to questioning, and I agree this is good. There are a whole lot more who just don’t care one way or another whether there is a god or not - they are not going to argue. I likely fit in that category.
Personally, I think it's good to stay away from absolutes when we are talking about a mystery. If that's what you mean, then I agree.
The stories, moral compass, art, etc., all go to support humanity, and are better understood metaphorically rather than literally. We've got followers, participants and on-lookers. We've got people who make church their life, and some for whom it's just a faint memory from their childhood.
I really think that a lot of people just don't really think about religion or the big questions all that much, and would be swayed by popular opinion and trends. Most of what we get from religion is disregarded - and could easily be replaced by our already socially acceptable norms - if religionists don't continue to use their theological certainty to stop the evolution of common sense.
Julie808
Level 8
July 14, 2022
3
Religion is a very moronc joke- but I am not going to take my whole day being a fire-breathing athiest- good god-dude, can't I find something worth while to do with my time??? I am an agnostic because I do not know if there is/was a cognitive entity that caused the big 'bangs', if there was more than one of them. If there is a 'super spook', it has never reveiled itself to the population.
I’m not much into absolutes, especially when it comes to language. The dynamics between literal and figurative can get pretty fuzzy, conceptually speaking. I don’t think there is only one strict way to use those words, but there are ways that make more and less sense to me personally.
What makes sense to me is the following.
The difference between literal and figurative is not that one refers to something that exists and the other to something that doesn’t. They both exist. One is being called by its actual name (snake) and the other is being referred to by comparison (danger noodle). Regardless of what we call it, it exists.
Do I like colorful language? Yes, I do. Do I think a snake is a noodle? No, I don’t. Do I think snakes exist? Without question. Am I open to new evidence? Always. Do I think evidence is likely to appear that a snake is actually a noodle? Not a chance.
The God metaphor is a bit more complex, because, it seems to me, it involves the presence or absence of a unified sentience.
Conveniently, Uncle Sam’s initials are U. S. We’re all familiar with the lanky figure and his stripey top hat. He is a personification of the United States.
Does Uncle Sam exist?
The thing those words refer to does certainly exist. Is that thing literally a male human in a red, white, and blue costume? Probably nobody believes that. If they did they would be a literalist. Does Uncle Sam have a unified sentience? Clearly (these days!) he does not.
To my thinking, the term literalist does not speak to how set in their ways a person might be (although I realize a lot of literalists are pretty set in their ways).
To me, it just refers to whether they regard God as having a unified sentience.
So what is it exactly that the theist/agnostic/atheist trifecta are all arguing about?
Is about whether nature exists? I don’t think so.
Is it about whether we should personify nature with metaphor? Again, I don’t think so.
More often than not it’s about whether some literal, sentient being designed and created the universe.
All three of those positions are relative to the existence or non-existence of a literal, sentient being. I don’t see how we can avoid viewing all three of them as literalists.
Do I believe that sentient being exists? Not even remotely.
Does that make me an atheist?
I’m sure it would in many people’s eyes. But not in mine.
Because I think God self-evidently exists, and no atheist would say that, because atheists are literalists, and I am not a literalist.
I have lived my life as a professional artist. I love art, music, literature. I appreciate the aesthetic and practical value of symbol, allegory, and metaphor. They are a large part of what (if anything) distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom.
I cannot imagine existing in a world without the color and texture of visual and linguistic symbolism like gods, demons, danger noodles, and uncles we affectionately call Sam.
And there isn’t a doubt in my mind that the things those metaphors refer to do exist.
I am not a theist, agnostic, or atheist. I am a religious figuratist.
Nature self-evidently exists.
And for the sake of art, culture, history, and consonance with 80% of my fellow humans I am delighted to call it Danger Noodle - I mean GOD! 
(It is a bit of a danger noodle sometimes.)
I will not live my life afraid of what associations other people make with such labels, or what strength it might lend to dangerous ideologies bearing similar names.
I spend equal time denouncing those ideologies. And there is no position that doesn’t have dangerous and ignorant baggage to deal with (atheistic communism, anyone?) so I call it like I see it and let the chips fall like rain on square-dancing unicorns in a heavenly meadow. 
@skado The idea of "god" exists, but as far as a real god or intelligent being, I have no thoughts or beliefs toward that. However I do know of people who literally believe in a God, but not nature, believing that God controls what we call nature.
Either way, I don't really care and prefer to concentrate on what we do know and act in accordance to that. I'm not a literalist, Maybe "figurativist" is a good term for me.
Not believing in religious ideas literally but in a figurative or literary sense might be an accurate description for me and even many of the religious people I know. I think that's why I get along with so many of my religious friends, as long as they are talking about ideas and not facts about their religion. I'm lucky to know some very open minded religious folks -- and unlucky enough to know some staunch believers in their religion.
I'd rather hang with staunch atheists than staunch religionists. That's just because I'm practical and like dealing with facts, but I also have imagination and would love to figure out a way to encourage the inhabitants of Earth to get along more harmoniously.
The dogmatic religions created in tribal environments in a place far away in a different time need to be replaced by new more inclusive ideas based in our current reality, with the science of the day as far as we know. I don't believe it needs to include a "God" figure, especially it's just a personification of Nature. Why confuse things further - just call it what it is or leave it as a mystery.
Many people who say "God only knows" aren't even believers in a literal God, but it's just a word that we use to mean that mystery. It doesn't do any harm to perpetuate the myth of god, in this way, as long as we know it to be a myth. We are just in a fuzzy time, with many of us trying to make sense of it all.
Yes, art helps us make sense of the world around us and offers glimpses of the possibilities for answers to our questions. Art likely exists in part because of the artists who question. Anything that helps us imagine and coax our sometimes chaotic minds from discord to harmony is necessary to our sanity, in my mind.
I think your comments underscore why I prefer the term agnostic to atheist to define myself. The term seems to leave the door for new evidence and reconsideration. I have heard many who use the term atheist to describe themselves who basically hold the same basic views I do in regard to evidence, and I recognise that since I have no particular belief in any diety, I am technically atheist. I feel less inclined to accept the rigid definition I feel are indicated in your statements and feel that your comments verge on a kind of false dichotomy where more possibilities exist when the definitions aren't nearly as clear cut as you say.
Lots of conceptions of Gods exist. They are typically personifications of humanoid characteristics. Even those who believe in incorporeal God(s) assign them human like emotion and desires. Believers in one conception of God(s) often are like the atheist with regard to all other conceptions of God(s) - they don't believe in that other system. But not finding a particular system convincing isn't the same, imo, as believing in a system, especially when the evidence for the system is at best flimsy, perhaps contrived, or unsubstantiated. Rejecting poor evidence and refusing to accept the resulting system isn't the same as believing poor evidence and dedicating oneself to it.
Your observations about tribalism is on point - this, I think, is part of the nature of the human condition. It is important to at least attempt to remain open to new evidence and new interpretations. At the same time, there is so much nonsense that comes from certain of the religious trying to convince and control as many people as possible that staying open to them means a lot of wasted time and energy. Shutting out nonsense isn't the same as those who generate nonsense in attempts to exert influence over others. I don't believe we see this same generation of nonsense from atheists that we see coming from religion.
RussRAB
Level 8
July 13, 2022
1
Okay @skado, so I get the distinct impression that, perchance, you may either be attempting an hypothesis OR you you have NO True and Real understanding nor comprehension as what makes an Atheist an Atheist.
Fyi, BEFORE religions were DREAMED up way way back in mist of human evolution humans merely strove to survive, breed and probably expand their ranks and clan/tribal territories.
Also fyi, Humans, aka Homo Sapiens, as well as most of our evolutionary predecessors, have always been gathered together in familial clans or smallish tribes BUT that by no MEANS means that they were gathering together to pay homage, etc, etc,to any God/Goddess or religious Deity.
Have you NEVER heard of the adage " Safety in numbers".?
Now @skado I throw down the gauntlet here and now and offer up unto you and you alone a PUBLIC Challenge to debate with ON SITE this present matter, so WILL you man up and accept my challenge or will you do the usual @skado and copy the Christfool trick of Post, Run and then Hide?
Triphid
Level 9
July 13, 2022
1
I agree.
He seems to need validation for our species curious nature.
Atheist is not a belief system, it is the opposite of that. If there is no verifiable evidence, there is no belief.
I need objective evidence that any god is real. Theist use subjective evidence coming from their minds. No theist has ever proven there is a god. If some on could prove there is a god I would no longer be an atheist to that god. Theist would have to prove which god it was. Wow no link to another posting.
xenoview
Level 8
July 13, 2022
2
@skado WHAT "observation," the one viewed through the haze of Weed smoke and Moonshine perhaps?
Or the one as seen as you run, as always, and duck for cover because someone challenges you to debate your postings and the ONLY real signs of actual manhood available in your 'Bammy shack are those belonging to your sisters come bed partners perhaps?
I consider myself an atheist (an agnostic atheist, more precisely), but if shown any scientific evidence that actually proves a creator god, from whatever creed, I would no longer be an theist. Now, just because I believed in the existence of said god, now, does not mean I would necessarily worship it.
I'm also not certain I am right, hence the agnostic part of my description.
I also don't agree with the statement that I am 'impervious' to the fact/consensus that H. Sapiens is a tool using animal. I think that's fairly self-evident.
A lot of your other statements also seem either totally contrary to fact (as to how they are accepted) or so broad to be useless. Honestly, what was the point here?
phxbillcee
Level 10
July 13, 2022
2
Also, that whole term "god is a person who lives in the sky" is sophomoric & simplistic & I doubt many theists adhere to that belief, let alone atheists.
@phxbillcee
The point is that atheists and theists alike take god to be a literal, creator god, as you just acknowledged. One camp says it exists. The other says it doesn't (or they don't know) but in either case, it's envisioned as a literal creator entity. Neither side seems to be able to envision god as anything but literal. That's what this post is about - not whether that literal god exists or not. I'm confident it doesn't.
@skado You have been pushing the idea of a metaphoric god for quite a while. I for one am not looking for a substitute.
On other subjects you have offered interesting view points but on this subject you are like a dog with a bone.
This subject fascinates you. I get that. You have been clear and concise. Can we now put it to bed?
@Betty
No ma’am. It will not be going to bed.
There are countless postings on this site that I have absolutely no interest in, but I know the posters of them do, and a few other people.
You know how I handle that?
I scroll right past them without a second thought. I don’t ask people to stop posting about the things that fascinate them. I have no obligation to read their posts. And no one has any obligation to read mine.
Unless, of course, they just find them irresistible. 
Even if god/theism is a metaphor, that does not make it a good metaphor. There are good and bad metaphors as well as many pointless and trivial ones.
Humans are not only metaphor forming animals, they are also eating animals. Made by natural evolution to have hungers, (That is also proved by science.) but that does not mean that all diets are good for you. But the good thing is, that, you can choose a healthy diet, and are more likely to do so if you receive good education and are protected against those who wish to gain, ruthlessly and without conscience, by pushing unhealthy foods. (This is called a metaphor by the way.)
Fortunately, you can also choose your metaphors.
The fake assumption made here is that, if it is natural for humans to create, metaphor and culture, then all metaphors and cultures are either good and of equal value, or even more, that one, the theist metaphor, is proven superior. It is a giant leap (Well several actually.) from, it is natural for humans to make metaphors, to, all metaphors are good, and my favoured one is the best of all. ( Your tribalism is showing rather badly. Especially when you tell atheists what you would like to think they are. It is called strawmaning. They are not all as stupid as your tribalism tells you that you would like to think. )
Fernapple
Level 9
July 13, 2022
1
"be resistant to scientific evidence contrary to ones beliefs"
Are you implying that there is scientific evidence to prove the existence of a god or gods ?. Surely not.
If god is diluted to a mere force which may have set off the big bang and had no further input then there is a faint possibility for it's existence but when god is mentioned certainly in the West it is the Abrahamic god who created the universe and takes more than a passing interest in everyone. There is certainly not one iota of evidence for the existence of such a being.
Moravian
Level 8
July 13, 2022
3
No, I'm not. You must be thinking of someone else. This post is not about that.
This post is about the similarity of atheists and theists in their common assumption that "when god is mentioned certainly in the West it is the Abrahamic god who created the universe and takes more than a passing interest in everyone."
One thing you are absolutely right on, skado, is that we humans are tribal creatures. The older I get, the more clear that is...
TomMcGiverin
Level 8
July 13, 2022
1
Same here. The older I get, the more apparent that is. It is surely a deeply embedded instinct. And damn near impossible to overcome.
When/if I am ever presented with credible and verifiable evidence of the existence of any god, I'll reconsider my position that no gods have ever existed anywhere in reality.
Arguing any other philosophical issue relating to that is a complete waste of my time. I have no need to belabor a very simple point.
Btw, telling someone that you don't believe what they're telling you is a two-way street.
However, by all means, carry on.
KKGator
Level 9
July 13, 2022
5
I trust that you understand that this post isn't addressing whether any literal god exists or ever has existed? My firm conviction is that it has not. But this post isn't about that.
I'm not belaboring such a simple point. I'm belaboring a much more subtle and complex point - basically that the idea of gods has played a pivotal role in the reproductive success of our species.
And that to deny the scientific evidence to that effect, just for the idle comfort of not having to budge an inch in the tribal tug-o-war between theism and atheism, is the identical attitude the other side takes. Science denial is science denial - coming or going.
Dropping in to tell me you don't like cilantro, or that you do... is fine, thanks, but not the subject of this post. People who are genuinely not interested find it effortlessly easy to scroll past without a second thought. Only those who subconsciously intuit they have something at stake make the effort to perform a drive-by shitting. It's a ritual performance that wards off evil spirits. It doesn't engage the issue at an intellectual or factual or evidential level - it just clears the subconscious - like smudging the room with little bundles of burning sage. And then scurrying off in case the sage didn't work.
But, by all means, scurry on.
@skado Speaking of metaphors.
Your initial post puts me in mind of a little boy, playing ball on one side of the street, inviting others to play.
I'm across the street, and my response was merely meant as a "no, thank you".
To have scrolled on, and not replied at all, would have been rude.
Enjoy your day.
@KKGator
I appreciate good manners. Thanks.
Are you able to afford to give such a kind RSVP to every ballgame in the neighborhood (whether they actually "invited" you personally or not)? Or do you feel more invited by some than others? Just curious. It's a big ol' neighborhood. Dang lotta... ballgames goin' on.
I agree with you , particularly as respects the "waste of time" statement.
Aside from all of the usual objections to your nonsense, there's this:
"...serves to enhance their reproductive fitness, or it would not exist..."
Nothing about what we think happened in the past guarantees performance or results in the future. There are tons of things humans do, invented, use, enjoy, etc. that 100% do not enhance reproductive fitness, but nonetheless exist.
ChestRockfield
Level 8
July 13, 2022
2
Of course there are. And there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, and no scientists claiming otherwise. Not so with the evolutionary utility of religion.
@skado Whether or not it exists because it helped mankind is independent from your claim that something needs to serve to enhance reproductive fitness, or it would not exist. It also doesn't follow logically that something that did enhance reproductive fitness will continue to enhance reproductive fitness (I direct your attention to moths for some proof).
@ChestRockfield
I'm here to learn. Tell me something - either a physical or behavioral trait - that has occurred in every time period and in every location where Homo sapiens populations have existed, that does not or did not, either directly or indirectly enhance the reproductive fitness of either individuals or groups. Thanks.
@ChestRockfield
It's true that what did at one time might not always. I haven't claimed otherwise. But if you claim a given evolutionary mechanism is no longer fitness enhancing, you first have to demonstrate that it ever was, and then illustrate how that need is no longer a factor.
@skado
"Tell me something - either a physical or behavioral trait - that has occurred in every time period and in every location where Homo sapiens populations have existed, that does not or did not, either directly or indirectly enhance the reproductive fitness of either individuals or groups."
I never made the claim that such a thing existed.
"It's true that what did at one time might not always. I haven't claimed otherwise."
Yes you have. Repeatedly. You have made the claim that we should not be so quick to dispense with religion because it was necessary and likely or definitely will continue to be in the future. I'm not going to dig through a mountain of mind-numbingly repetitive posts to find examples. Everyone that's been here for a while knows you have, and you have a track record of being disingenuous in your posts and repossess, so I don't think I'll actually get anywhere with you. I mostly post on your stupid shit as a public service for any new members.
"if you claim a given evolutionary mechanism is no longer fitness enhancing, you first have to demonstrate that it ever was"
No. I don't. I'm not making assertive claims. That's your shtick. I'm simply stating that even if it was beneficial before doesn't mean it still is or will be in the future. There are countless examples to support this. The appendix is a good one. Perhaps the tailbone? Sizes and shapes of appendages, beaks, fur, feathers, literally most things that evolved and were beneficial were no longer beneficial for something in the evolutionary chain. Your big fat ridiculous hard on for religion ignores the fact that religion could very well already be one of those things and certainly could be in the future if not already.
@ChestRockfield
"Likely or definitely will continue in the future" - Yes.
"Always." - No. I have not said that.
Always is a long time. I don't expect Homo sapiens to even be around "always".
Nobody "knows" I have said "always" because I haven't said "always". If I carelessly used the word "always" where I meant "for the foreseeable future" let the record show that I did not mean literally always. I have never thought "literally always".
I have not been disingenuous. The reason people accuse me of that is because I am expressing a view that they have no conceptual category for in their worldview, so they unconsciously jamb me into one of the categories they do recognize. Then when I don't conform to that category, they want to call me disingenuous.
But I've been 100% sincere, and as consistent as is humanly possible, for the entire 5 years I've been on this site. And just as consistently, people have assumed I've said things I've never said, assumed I believe things I don't believe, and accused me of motivations I don't have. And aside from that being rude and stinky, I mostly don't care, because none of this is about me. As far as my interests go, it's just about the ideas. When people act like adolescents, that's on them - not me. If they are so discombobulated by an idea they don't like, they should figure out why, and refute the idea with reason instead of attacking the messenger. If they think it's absurd and unworthy of their attention, they should scroll past, as many reasonable adults here do every day.
I try to engage all reasonable, mutually respectful comments, no matter how opposed to my view they are. But the folks who have no rational rebuttal, but just want to hurl ad homs, foul language, and personal insults like teenagers, I get pretty bored with pretty quickly and just ignore them. I won't be able to learn anything from them, nor them from me.
I have not claimed that the reason we need religion now and into the foreseeable future is because we needed it in the past. As you have pointed out, things change. Evolution is a story of constant change. The fact that we needed something in the past is never the reason it lingers forever. The reason traits linger is because the evolutionary pressures that brought them into existence are still at play in our environment.
In this particular case, that pressure consists mostly of evolutionary mismatch, brought on by Homo sapiens' own modification of his environment. If we hit a bottleneck and the population is knocked back to the stone age, then the need for organized religion will evaporate and we will go back to animism, and nomadic, egalitarian tribes like we did before the invention of agriculture. But if we should be so lucky as to survive in numbers remotely resembling the current population, and technology continues apace, then the evolutionary forces that created organized religion will not only not go away, they will escalate.
To be clear, I have not advocated for religion as we currently know it. I have advocated often and consistently for the reform of religion instead of the abandonment of religion. I have advocated for a rejoining of science and religion, and none of that has been motivated by any affection on my part for religion. I have been a fugitive from religion all my adult life, and often a religion hater, like many people on this site. I am not here as an outsider trying to convert atheists. If you knew my private thoughts you would call me a hard-core atheist - without a trace of agnosticism, beyond the willingness to look at any new evidence. But I truly don't think such evidence will be forthcoming.
This is not disingenuous. I have not misrepresented any of my beliefs or intentions. I have just become more aware of the science, and think my fellow non-believers should know about it before they saw off the limb they're sitting on. The religion I'm talking about does not require a belief in anything that is not supported by science. It's tolerant of that, but it isn't required. What's required is a universal narrative that gets all 8 billion of us on the same page before we collapse into Word War Last. The two human institutions that are best positioned to do that are science and religion. They need to learn how to co-operate. And there is a clear path available for that co-operation. If we can learn to consider ideas that are unfamiliar to us, before we condemn what we don't understand.
@skado
Where did I say you said "always"?
You see, your explanation here perfectly exemplifies why people think you're an apologist. You're fully aware that several billion people would need to abandon a belief in a literal god and adopt a religious belief system that's completely foreign to them to satisfy this plan of yours instead of abandoning religion and adopting a philosophical belief system that seems to make infinitely more sense.
@ChestRockfield
"Where did I say you said "always"?"
HERE:
skado sez: "It's true that what did at one time might not always. I haven't claimed otherwise."
Chest Sez: "Yes you have. Repeatedly."
.
.
As far as the apologist comment is concerned, as I said before, I don't care what people call me. None of this is about me. It's just exploring ideas. Everyone here is an apologist for something - in the generic sense.
If they mean it in the traditional sense of being a Christian apologist, they're just wrong. I don't belong to any Christian organization and have no plans to join one. I don't believe anything regarding literal gods that atheists don't believe.
If I'm an apologist, I'm an apologist for science, reason, generational wisdom, and human compassion.
I don't have a plan that I expect to be satisfied. But that doesn't stop me from trying to figure out what I think is going on, and what might be the most reasonable way to face the future.
The history of religion includes countless small and large reforms and gradual evolutions. It contains zero instances of the complete cessation of religion in the world. Pew Research documented the fact that religion is growing as a percentage of world population - not diminishing. It isn't going away. Stopping it altogether would be ten times harder than just modifying it. There is no known society in history that has not had religion. It is a part of human nature.
That’s not apologism. It’s science.
@skado
If your "not always" is only guaranteed on the technicality that at some point humans will be extinct, then that's a disingenuous use of the phrase, and part and parcel to your bait and switch argument style. No one here is stupid enough to think that the cessation of all human life wouldn't end human use of or need for religion.
"I don't have a plan that I expect to be satisfied."
"The religion I'm talking about does not require a belief in anything that is not supported by science. It's tolerant of that, but it isn't required. What's required is a universal narrative that gets all 8 billion of us on the same page before we collapse into Word War Last. The two human institutions that are best positioned to do that are science and religion. They need to learn how to co-operate. And there is a clear path available for that co-operation."
But you clearly have a plan.
"Stopping it altogether would be ten times harder than just modifying it."
A completely ridiculous characterization of what you're suggesting. "Just modifying" in no way describes the complete abandonment of the supreme being, reward system, punishment system, and general reason to behave in any particular manner for a vast, vast majority of religious people around the world. To get people to do that is essentially the abandonment of their religion, and then you still have work to do on top of that. No reasonable person would say that would be easier than just an abandonment of religion.
"Pew Research documented the fact that religion is growing as a percentage of world population - not diminishing."
And I bet it's also true that the percentage of people that believe in god is growing as well then. But those things are both irrelevant and not at all surprising considering mankind seems to be regressing in a number of ways.
@ChestRockfield
“If your "not always" is only guaranteed on the technicality that at some point humans will be extinct…”
It isn’t.
What religion does is act as a counter-balance to evolutionary mismatch. That’s when the environment we evolved to fit starts changing faster than biological evolution can adapt. Which is exactly what happened when we invented agriculture.
We went from being small nomadic hunter/gatherer bands of mostly kin, to sedentary villages of farmers who had to interact peacefully with untold numbers of strangers - not the kind of thing we were psychologically habituated to. This happened virtually overnight, in evolutionary terms.
Biology doesn’t move that fast. Big changes might happen in a hundred thousand years, but not ten thousand. But that is exactly when organized religion came on the scene to make the behavioral corrections. It worked. Agriculture, and the cultural adjustments we had to make to accommodate it, set a fire under our reproductive capabilities and we overpopulated the Earth in a mere ten thousand years. It was, reproductively speaking, a huge success.
So if we survive another hundred thousand years, which is possible, we could simply evolve our biologically based psychology to not need that cultural correction. Exactly the way we adapted our psychology over two million years on the African savannas to fit the hunter/gatherer lifestyle.
But now we also have advancing technology. Which means, on the one hand, that before a hundred thousand more years, we might get good enough at gene splicing to speed that process up artificially.
On the other hand, advancing technology is increasing the rate of change in our environment, which is what causes the mismatch to start with. So it could be a Catch-22 that we could never catch up with. But that’s all too far in the future to predict. Suffice it to say, there are many possibilities, and among them is that we might find or evolve some solution to the mismatch other than religion.
But for the immediate future, I don’t see any other fix on the horizon.
“But you clearly have a plan.”
I have no ambition to change the course of history. I have a plan for my life, as every responsible person should. I want to behave in accordance with reality, as best I can discern it. And at this moment, this is how it appears to me.
My interest in talking about this issue on this site has nothing to do with any “plan” and everything to do with my love of philosophy and ‘arguing with strangers on the internet.’
“A completely ridiculous characterization of what you're suggesting. "Just modifying" in no way describes the complete abandonment of the supreme being, reward system, etc. etc.”
“To get people to do that is essentially the abandonment of their religion, and then you still have work to do on top of that.”
“No reasonable person would say that would be easier than just an abandonment of religion.”
Listen to what you’re saying.
“To get people to do that is essentially the abandonment of their religion… No reasonable person would say that would be easier than just an abandonment of religion.”
No person who is familiar with the science of why we are a religious species would entertain the idea of frivolously abandoning what holds civilization together, not to mention even imagine that it could be done. You, and the dwindling number of atheists in the world are free to abandon religion all you want. I did sixty years ago. But you have no power, (and, I bet, no “plan” ) for how to force everyone else to do the same.
Yes, the percentage of people who believe in God is growing. But the needed modification is not as catastrophic to that belief as you imagine.
The issue isn’t really whether they believe in God, but how convinced they are that they know the mind of God. Belief in God is not unfounded. The universe itself is a “supreme” being. Thinking the universe has thoughts of its own is scientifically untenable, but even if it did, there would be no way we could second guess them. All holy scripture that I’ve ever encountered advised against trying. The only modification religious people need to make is to follow their own scripture!
Which of those groups of people, (...both equally resistant to any and all scientific evidence contrary to their beliefs...) do you think could change their mind when presented with new evidence ? As an atheist, I would change my view if confronted by reasons to believe in god. Soooo.... I call BS
Leetx
Level 7
July 13, 2022
0
Of course. But this post is not about belief in god. It’s about defining god.
The god you don’t believe in is exactly the same one theists do believe in. What you and they are equally resistant to is that any other understanding of the god concept could exist. There is ample evidence for a metaphorical god. So I call BS on the claim that you would change your view.
a "metaphorical god " really. I guess the fact that many atheist were raised in a religious background and BECAUSE OF EVIDENCE, (i.e. ghost can't get a girl pregnant, the dead don't rise, the earth is older then 6 thousand years...etc etc etc) DID in fact change their views with this new evidence, makes your argument that atheist are just like the religious and can't change their minds...kind of a moot point. unless you have some NEW information about this Metaphorical god you would like to present.@skado
@Leetx
Ok, consider the other side.
Many theists were raised in a non-religious background and BECAUSE OF (what they considered) EVIDENCE, (i.e. they could experience God’s presence, belief gave them a sense of purpose, an identity, and a community to belong to, it gave them a coherent worldview that they didn’t have to build from scratch ...etc., etc., etc.) DID in fact change their views, from atheist to theist, with this new experiential evidence, makes your argument that atheists are not just like the religious and can change their minds...kind of a moot point.
I’ve been presenting the “NEW” evidence here for five years now, and again in this post.
Language self-evidently exists. It is its own evidence.
Metaphor self-evidently exists. It is its own evidence.
Atheists and theists say god is a man in the sky.
Science says god is a metaphor…
that Homo sapiens has leveraged for enhanced reproductive fitness, i.e. survival.
@Leetx Mental masturbation, one of my favorite terms, lol! It was first introduced to me many years ago by an old friend that was a schoolteacher and fellow community theater person. In the years since, it has appeared to be an apt description for the favorite hobby of many intellectual men. Personally, skado, I do notice how you seem to be making or bringing up the same issue or argument over and over on these boards, and frankly, I just don't give a fuck about this ? of what or why atheists and agnostics see things the way they do. All I know is that I don't believe anymore in there being any deities or supernatural things, and that I want to be left alone by those who do believe in such things. Your issues that you keep harping on and bringing up just don't matter to me and I honestly don't spend any of my time thinking about them. They just seem irrelevant to my life. It's the same with analyzing why believers think or believe as they do. I pretty much just don't care and all I want from them is to be left alone. I can think of better things to do with my time and mental energy than analyzing and trying to figure out how and what others think regarding religion and spiritual things, as I feel no need to know that stuff in order to live my life.
So you two have called BS on each other, looks like a draw to me. Move along, nothing to see here, lol........
@TomMcGiverin
Sorry but I just don’t find the claim credible, from the many people who claim they don’t give a fuck, but somehow just can’t resist the temptation to drop in and…
give a few fucks.
@skado Maybe we just enjoy humoring you or screwing with you a bit, mentally, skado....... I do enjoy arguing a bit, mainly just for sport. Like I said before, I grew up in a family of lawyers...
@TomMcGiverin
Good. Then on we argue.
What’s your argument?
@skado Toodles...
@TomMcGiverin
Bye now. Thanks for the fucks.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.