A thought experiment

Artifact sounds about right. They would develope a new, and somewhat different artifact. It would evolve.

One needn't theorize such extreme isolationism to acknowledge that the numerous earthly religions are already contradictory and mutually exclusive and that atheism must by definition support a more universal perspective given its argument against the existence of the supernatural.

I have read that all known cultures have some form of religion. That does not mean, of course, that every individual everywhere is religious (I'm an atheist). If this is so, religion does seem to be a socio-cultural artifact, perhaps a device for promoting social solidarity, and dealing with matters before the advent of scientific medicine and engineering.
An anthropologist of the early 20th century, Mischa Titiev, noted that as scientific ways of dealing with natural disasters advance the dependence on religion declines. But science will never negate the fact that all individuals will inevitably die. This existential reality may guarantee some religiousity on the part of some individuals.

I've seen it said by atheists that theists argue against atheism as if it were a religion. Certainly it's a system of beliefs but I don't think it's a religion because in my thought experiment it would evolve and be identical whereas any monotheistic and pantheistic religions that evolved would not look the same as what we have at all. Is that the difference between theism and atheism?

No, atheism need not be "a system of beliefs" so much as a pragmatic debunking of supernatural claims.

I suspect any religion would initially revolve around a really uber robot nanny.

Not so, the amoeba is immortal and soon enough through cryogenics the issue of date of death will have ambiguity.

When cybernetics / genetics hits full stride, all bets are off in terms of ultimate lifespan.

But they'd prolly die off after one generation, unless the robot nannies were really soft and such, since monkeys raised with no attachment objects generally won't mate, and if they do, they don't look after their babies.


If the nannies were kind, it would probably then evolve into a robot-nanny cargo cult (if the nannies only loked after the first lot of babies...) Likely very beset with awful explanations for why the robot nannies went away/won't function any more.

A gloomy faith, with original sin and all.

Kinda like now...but more concrete.

Or iron?

Heh!!!!

Take millennia for iron (or concrete)....

You're also making an assumption that the robo-babies would know how to do "what comes naturally". Breeders of endangered species run into this problem all the time.

History has shown us this progression in all known cultures:

-early idolatry (worshipping animals)
-simple superstition (greek mythology)
-complex superstition/magic (roman mythology)
-beginnings of understanding truth (native american spirituality)
-a long period of darkness caused by organized religion ('nuff said)
-enlightenment and trying to remember truth after thousands of years of organized religion's subversion of the truth.

We used to know greater truths (when I say "we" I mean the human race back through pre-history) Before we were clouded by reality, we grasped the abstract rather well. These days we assume our 6 senses lie to us, when in fact they don't. Its the "gee, I thought I heard something, but I don't see it so it must not be what I thought" mentality that is screwing us up.

I have no reason to believe this hypothetical isolated society wouldn't evolve the same way, but it will take hundreds of thousands of years. Developing language, discovering enlightened souls, the slow trickle of information, those who believe and those who don't, evolution of language, etc. Its always a fascinating topic to me; these hypothetical societies.

I agree with Chumly that--at least my form of atheism--is not a SYSTEM of beliefs. It is no more than a rejection, but not a systematic repudiation, of theism.
Perhaps it is a KIND of system insofar as I reject theism because it is out of tune with EVERYTHING I think I know. Could that "everything", that worldview, be what Hingehead means by system?

I acknowledge all the improbabilities of survival of new borns without cultural influences. Which is why it's a thought experiment. It's not really on topic but IF they could survive, I think language would develop rather quicker than Curtis' 100,000s of years. My understanding is that human language and brain size developed in tandem. So starting with a larger brain would make language easier to develop adopt. That said, as has been mentioned, would they even have the inclination.

The distant/planet robot nanny stuff was just a more interesting way of saying what sort would religion develop without our cultural luggage.